Justice Rajiv Roy dismisses petitions seeking to hang on to surplus lands of the Bihar State

In Basundhara Devi & Ors.vs. The State Of Bihar & Ors. and in Rajeshwar Rao & Anr. 1. The State of Bihar (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench delivered a 67-page long judgment dated September 19, 2025, wherein, Justice Rajiv Roy concluded: ''85. This takes the Court to only one conclusion. The writ petition(s) have no merit and have been filed not only to defeat the provisions of ‘the Act’ but also to any how hang on to the surplus lands which otherwise should have been vested with  the State of Bihar decades ago. 86. Both the writ petitions are dismissed. The stay order dated 15.06.2017 stands vacated. 87. A copy of the order be sent to the Collector, West Champaran for his/her perusal/needful.''  The Act refers to Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. 

The writ application was filed for the issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing of the order dated February 27, 2017 passed by K.K. Pathak, Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in Revision (Land Ceiling Surplus) Case No. 3/2009 whereby, the order dated January 30, 2009 passed by the Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah in a Appeal and the order dated June 7, 1988 passed by the Additional Collector (Land Ceiling) West Champaran, Bettiah in Case No. 13/1975which was  re-affirmed. The application prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ restraining the respondents to distribute the surplus land arising out of a Ceiling Case and for any other relief/reliefs the petitioners are entitled for under the law as well as on facts.

A Land Ceiling Case no. 13/1974-75 was initiated against the landholder, Rajeshwar Rao over 72.96 acres of land and after allowing 44.62 acres equivalent to two units, the rest 28.34 acres of lands were declared surplus. Accordingly, the draft statement under section 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 was issued on November 12, 1976. The landholder thereafter preferred objection as follows:
(i) he surrendered 2.86 acres of land;
(ii) late Bacha Rao’s daughter has been denied unit;
(ii) only two units have been allowed for the widow and the landholder, Rajeshwar Rao whereas the grandmother was alive on 09.09.1970.

 It was  disposed of by the Additional Collector, West Champaran on December 20, 1976 holding that:
(i) 2.86 surrendered land be excluded from the land of the landholder;
(ii) late Bacha Rao’s units has been allotted to her widow (mother of the landholder) and no separate unit can be allotted to his sister; (iii) in the genealogical table, grandmother has been shown dead. The same is recorded in verification report and as such, she is entitled to a separate unit.

This followed notification under Section 11(1) of ‘the Act’ on January 21, 1977. Thereafter, Appeal No. 308 of 1976-77 was preferred before the Collector, West Champaran which came to be rejected on February 15, 1977. The landholder preferred Ceiling Revision Case no. 348/1977 before the Board of Revenue, Bihar. It was disposed of on July 27, 1977 by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar and the matter was remanded back to the Collector, West Champaran for fresh adjudication. The Board of Revenue held that the petitioner’s  main claim was grant of additional unit to the grandmother, Shujhari Kunwar who was alive on 09.09.1970. It came to the conclusion that the grandmother was entitled to an additional unit. The Board of Revenue’s order dated July 27, 1977. 

This revision application was filed u/s 32 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 on behalf of Rajeshwar Rao, son of late Bacha Rao and Mt. Sheojhari Kuer, widow of late Nageshwar Rso, both residents of village Mathis, P.S. Lauriya, district West Champaran is directed against order dated February 15, 1977 of the Collector, in Revenue Appeal NO. 308/76-77, whereby the Collector dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioners against the order dated December 20, 1976 or the in L. C. Case NO. 13/75-76. The impugned orders of the lower courts were assailed by the lawyer on behalf of the petitioners mainly on the ground that the lower courts erred in not giving a ceiling unit to petitioner no.2 Sheojhari Kuer, widow of late Nageshwar Rao, grand father of petitioner No.1 Rajeshwar Rao. The impugned orders of the lower courts set aside and remanded the case to the court of the Collector, West Champaran with direction to dispose of the matter in accordance with law and in the light of my observations made in the foregoing paragraphs. To set the matters at rest the Collector is directed to inquire if petitioner no. 2 was still alive on the basis of the evidence adduced by the concerned parties including the petitioners as well as the State. In the result, the revision application is allowed. Following the aforesaid direction, the Additional Collector, West Champaran took up the Ceiling Case No. 13 of 1974-75 and vide an order dated October 28, 1977 allowed third unit to Shujhari @ Siodhari Kunwar, the grand-mother of Rajeshwar Rao. Total surplus land was found to be 8.41 acres including 2.86 acres of land voluntarily surrendered by the petitioners. The case of the petitioners was also that while the matter was pending, vide Amendment Act 55 of 1982, Section 32B came into force.

Justice Partha Sarthy disposed writ application against Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 2019

In Guleshwar Yadav vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Bihar Land Reforms, Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Justice Partha Sarthy passed a 4-page long judgment dated August 4, 2025 disposed the writ application. This judgement was authored by Justice Partha Sarthy.  

The petitioner had filed the application for the following relief(s):
(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quash the abatement order dated May 28, 2019 and the Respondents authority to declaring ultra virus Bihar Act 6, 2019 by which amendment has been brought in Section 16 sub section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 Amendment Act, 2019.
(ii) For direction to the Respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Jamui to proceed with the proceeding of 4 of 2017-18 and considering the same not affected by amendment of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Amendment Act, 2019.

The case of the petitioner was that a registered sale deed bearing no.187 dated January 8, 2018 was executed with respect to the land in question by Meera Devi, Saroj Mandal and Niranjan Mandal, the respondent nos.7 to 9 respectively in favour of Pramila Devi @ Sabiya Devi, the respondent no.10. The petitioner being a boundary raiyat of the land in question filed an application under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 for a direction to the respondent no.10 to transfer the land in his favour. The case was registered as Ceiling Case No.4 of 2018 in the Court of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Jamui. During pendency of the this application, the Government of Bihar came out with the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 2019 whereby section 16(3) of the Act was repealed. As a result, by order dated May 28, 2019, the D.C.L.R., Jamui was closed the Ceiling Case no.4 of 2018 as having abated. As a consequence, the petitioner filed the application in the High Court for quashing the order of D.C.L.R., to declare the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 2019 as ultra vires and to direct the D.C.L.R., Jamui to proceed with the Ceiling Case no.4 of 2017-18. 

The petitioner's case was that the validity of the Amendment Act, 2019 along with that of the Amendment Act, 2016 came for consideration and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudhakar Jha & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [2023 (6) BLJ 397] which upheld the same vide its judgment dated October 13, 2023. The question of validity of the Amendment Act, 2019 was raised in the application having already been upheld in the case of Sudhakar Jha & Ors., nothing remains to be adjudicated and the instant application be also decided in similar terms. 

Justice Parta Sarthy observed: "7. As already directed in the order dated 28.5.2019, it shall be open to the petitioner/pre-emptor to withdraw the amount deposited by him in terms of section 16 of the Act in accordance with law." 

As part of the same Division Bench, Justice Sarthy had passed a similar judgement dated August 21, 2024 in Narendra Kumar @ Sanjeev Kr. Sinha vs. he State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2024). He also observed: "in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punyadeo Sharma & Ors. vs. Kamla Devi & Ors. [2022 (1) BLJ 434 (SC)] it held that all cases or proceedings which may be pending before any authority or Court including the High Court stood abated and the amount deposited shall be refunded in the manner as provided under section 16(4) of the Act."

Narendra Kumar @ Sanjeev Kr. Sinha, the petitioner had filed the writ application for the following reliefs :-“1. A. A writ in the nature of MANDAMUS or other appropriate writ/s, order/s, Respondents for the following:-i. To hold the provisions of the the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land (Amendment) Act, 2019 repealing sub-section 3 of Section 16 of the Act and adding now Sub-section 4(i)(ii) to be ultra-vires of the Constitution and in alternative to hold the amendment to be prospective in application and the same not to affect concluded orders/proceeding.
ii. To direct the private Respondents to execute Sale Deeds with respect to land bearing Khata No. 179 Plot No. 1221 admeasuring 28 decimal situated at village Mohamadpur gram panchayat Block Asthama P.S.-Asthama, District- Nalanda as covered by the Sale Deeds executed in favour of the Respondent No. 7 and 8 admeasuring 14 decimals situated at village Sherpur, falling within Mohammadpur Gram Panchayat at Asthama Block.
iii. To direct the Respondents to resort to the provisions of compulsory registration by concerned officials who are competent to execute the Sale Deed.
iv. To hold the Petitioner to be entitled to execution of the sale deed.

B. A writ in the nature of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s, direction quashing the following:-i. The order dated November 5, 2018 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Biharsharif in Land Celling Case No. 02/1983-84 rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner for execution of the Sale Deed.
ii. The order dated September 3, 2019 issued by the Additional Collector, Nalanda in Land Ceiling Appeal Case No. 04/2018 rejecting the appeal, filed by the Petitioner and terminating entire proceeding in view of the repeal of the provision contained in Section 16(3) of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Lard) Act, 1961.

In this case also Justice Sarthy recalled that the constitutional validity of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 2019, besides other amendments, repealing section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 was the subject matter of challenge in the case of Sudhakar Jha & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [2024 (3) PLJR 403 (DB)] wherein a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the challenge to its constitutional validity. He concluded:"...this case arising out of an application under section 16(3) of the Act stands abated. It shall be open to the petitioner to withdraw the amount deposited by him in terms of section 16 of the Act in accordance with law. 4. The application stands disposed of as having abated."

High Court reiterates constitutional validity of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 2019

The constitutional validity of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 2019, besides other amendments, repealing section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 was challenged in the case of Sudhakar Jha & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [2024 (3) PLJR 403 (DB)]. A Division Bench of Patna Court comprising Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy had dismissed the challenge to its constitutional validity. The judgement was delivered October 13, 2023. it was authored by Justice Sarthy. Notably, in this 174 page long judgement 127 pages are names of parties and advocates.  The petitioners has also challenged the orders passed by different authorities including the Additional Collector, the Commissioner of the Division and the Bihar Land Tribunal, all of which arise out of applications for pre-emption filed under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. The petitioners had claimed that the amendments are against the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice. It is . It is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. 

The petitioners had claimed that Section 16(3) of the Act has been repealed in an arbitrary manner without assigning any cogent reasons and the amendment is arbitrary, unconstitutional, unreasonable and ultra vires the parent Act. It should not be made applicable with retrospective affect. The amendment effected has not only been done in excess of the power granted under the Constitution; assent of the President; without which it is otiose, has not been taken before its promulgation. The amendment affected was beyond the  competence of the State legislature and on account of repeal of section 45B of the Act, the statutory remedy of appeal/revision as was earlier available has been taken away without providing for any forum for adjudication of the disputes. They prayed that the amendments be declared ultra vires the Constitution and the same be set aside.

The High Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Punyadeo Sharma & Ors. vs. Kamla Devi & Ors. [2022 (1) BLJ 434 (SC)] to hold that all cases or proceedings which may be pending before any authority or Court including the High Court stood abated and the amount deposited shall be refunded in the manner as provided under section 16(4) of the Act. 

The Supreme Court in the case of Punyadeo Sharma has held as follows :-
“4. The question examined by the Division Bench of the High Court was whether an application for pre-emption was filed within three months of the registration as required by Section 16(3) of the Act or was it required to be filed within three months of the day of execution of the sale deed i.e. 9.2.1990. However, the said question does not survive for consideration in view of the subsequent development whereby the right of pre-emption itself has been taken away by the Bihar Act No. 6 of 2019 when the Act was amended. The Amending Act reads thus:
………………………………
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that the right of pre-emption, after the Amending Act, abates as Sub-section 4(i) is specifically dealing with all pending proceedings before whatsoever forum. Therefore, the right of pre-emption will stand abated on and after 25.2.2019 including the proceedings which were pending before any forum.
………………………………
12. …Any other Court is wide enough to include the Constitutional Courts i.e. the High Court and the Supreme Court. ……………….Thus, keeping in view the object of the Statute, purpose to be achieved and the express language of the Amending Act, all proceedings of pre-emption under the Act pending before any authority under the Act or before any Court shall stand abated.

13. Consequently, the present appeals are allowed. The entire pre-emption proceedings stand abated. It shall be open to the respondents to withdraw 10% of the amount deposited by them in terms of Section 16 of the Act in accordance with law.” 

In Narendra Kumar @ Sanjeev Kr. Sinha vs. The State of Bihar (2024), the High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy has held that the case arising out of an application under section 16(3) of the Act stands abated. It shall be open to the petitioner to withdraw the amount deposited by him in terms of section 16 of the Act in accordance with law. The judgement was delivered August 21, 2024. Justice Sarthy authored the judgement. Y.C. Verma, Senior Advocate represented the petitioner. There were seven respondents besides the State of Bihar. They are: Member Board of Revenue, Patna, the Collector, Nalanda, Biharsharif, the Additional Collector, Nalanda, Biharsharif, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Nalanda, Biharsharif, the Sub Divisional Officer, Nalanda, Biharsharif, Ramashraya Prasad, Sherpur, Mahamadpur, Asthawan, Nalanda and Krishnaballabh Singh.