TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (3) TMI 724
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turn was filed by the landholder under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was alleged that the landholder possessed excess land. A draft statement under Section 10 was issued by the Collector under the Act. The landholder objected to the proceedings and asserted that he did not possess land in excess of ceiling area. An enquiry was made and verification reports were submitted by the Circle Officers (Anchal Adhikaris). The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, (DCLR) Samastipur, vide his order dated January 07, 1976 upheld the objection of the landholder and recorded a finding that the landholder did not possess surplus land and the proceedings were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....III land and the remaining land of 71.40 acres was required to be declared surplus. An order was passed to that effect. A direction was also given to take appropriate steps for issuance of final statement under Section 11 of the Act. The appellant preferred an appeal against the said order before the Collector under Section 30 of the Act. It was, inter alia, contended that the order dated January 7, 1976 declaring that the landholder did not possess excess land, had not been challenged and attained finality. The notification and final statement which was required to be issued under Section 11 of the Act had not been issued by the authorities. Non-issuance of final statement cannot adversely affect the landholder. It was also submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ful. The learned Single Judge noted that though the order was passed in 1976, no final notification under Section 11(1) of the Act was issued prior to April 9, 1981 when the Act was amended and Sections 32A and 32B were added. In the circumstances, observed the learned Single Judge, initiation of fresh proceedings was permissible and the order passed in those proceedings could not be objected. The writ petition was, therefore, dismissed. The Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. The said order has been challenged in this Court. On February 4, 2000, notice was issued by this Court and ad-interim relief was granted. The matter was thereafter adjourned from time to time. On December 11, 2000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said to have been concluded and in view of amendment in 1981, action could be taken under Section 32B of the Act and appellant had no right to make grievance against it. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. So far as the contention of the appellant that the proceedings had been initiated in 1973- 74 and final order was passed on January 7, 1976 is not disputed and cannot be disputed. If it is so, submission of the appellant is well founded that final statement as required by sub-section (1) of Section 11 ought to have been issued and effect ought to have been given to the final order. Admittedly, no appeal was filed. Nor the order was cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ermitted to take advantage of such situation. This is based on the Latin maxim 'Commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet' (No party can take undue advantage of his own wrong). In Union of India & Ors. v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav (Retd.), (1996) 4 SCC 127, the accused-army personnel himself was responsible for delay as he escaped from detention. Then he raised an objection against initiation of proceedings on the ground that such proceedings ought to have been initiated within six months under the Army Act, 1950. Referring to the above maxim, this Court held that the accused could not take undue advantage of his own wrong. Considering the relevant provisions of the Act, the Court held that presence of the accused was an essential cond....