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(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 2019 whereby section 16(3) of the Act was repealed.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.