Justice Sourendra Pandey directs the State to examine representation on release of petitioner’s land, declared surplus land in Ceiling Case of 1973-1974 without any notice

In Rajendra Mandal @ Rejendra Mandar S/o Late Nanulal Mandal @ Late Nanu Mandar vs. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary Revenue, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Sourendra Pandey of Patna High Court delivered a 4-page long judgment dated April 15, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"6. In view of the aforesaid submissions and taking into account the earlier order passed by this Court in aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 14493 of 2002 & analogous cases, the petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation before the Additional Collector (Ceiling), Darbhanga (respondent No. 3), detailing his grievances, within a period of four weeks from today, who, on receipt of such representation, after taking into account the fact that the petitioner had purchased the property way-back in the year 1977 from the land-holder whose land has subsequently been declared to be surplus and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the original land-holder/legal heirs or legal representatives of the land in question apart from the other relevant parties including the petitioner, shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a further period of four months of the receipt of such representation.7. If the claim of the petitioner is found to be tenable, necessary sequel order shall also be passed by the concerned respondent/authority within the aforesaid period. 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of."

The four other respondents were: District Magistrate cum Collector, Darbhanga, Additional Collector Ceiling, Darbhanga, Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Darbhanga and Circle Officer, Biraul, Darbhanga.

The writ application was  filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for a direction to the respondent authorities to release the petitioner’s land, which has been declared surplus land by Ceiling Case No. 69 of 1973-1974 illegally without any notice upon him and without proper enquiry under Section 5(i) (ii) by avoiding Section 9(2) of the Ceiling Act.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that his grievances shall be redressed if the present writ application be disposed of with a direction to the Additional Collector (Ceiling), Darbhanga (respondent No. 3) in terms of the order passed by the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14493 of 2002 and analogous cases, disposed of on April 21, 2005. He submitted that he is then purchaser of the land in question, which was  declared to be surplus by the authorities concerned. It was submitted that the case of the petitioner was exactly similar to the case of one Yamun Mandal & Ors., which was also the subject matter in the batch of writ petitions, i.e., C.W.J.C. Nos. 768 of 2003.

The standing counsel submitted that the petitioner, being the purchaser, cannot be given the opportunity of being heard at such a belated stage and passage of time upon the disposal of the writ application. It was submitted that the Additional Collector (Ceiling), Darbhanga (respondent No. 3) can look into the matter, if the original land-holder from whom the petitioner purchased the said land is heard before passing any order.