Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14638 of 2005 =================================================== Yogendra Das @ Yogi Das , son of Late Saryug Das, resident of Village- Arsandi, P.O. Amarpur, P.S. Bihpur, District- Bhagalpur --------Pre-emptor/O.P./O.P./ Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna 3. The Collector, Bhagalpur 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Naugachhiya, District-Bhagalpur -------- Respondents Authorities under the Bihar Land Reforms (Ceiling) Act. 5. Kamleshwari Roy, son of Late Jagrup Roy, resident of Village- Arsandi, P.O. Amarpur, P.S. Bihpur, District- Bhagalpur --------------O.P.( purchaser)/petitioner. -----------Petitioner/ Respondent 1st Set. 6. Naresh Sangahi, son of Late Giro Sangahi 7. Hari Mohan Sangahi, son of Late Gorelal Sangahi 8. Sada Nand Sangahi, son of Late Bachi Sangahi 9. Pradeep Sangahi 10. Ganesh Sangahi , both sons of Late Basudeo Sangahi 11. (a) Anit Sangahi (b) Sri Sanjay Sangahi, both sons of Late Yogendra Sangahi 12. Sachida Nand Sangahi, son of Late Ambika Sangahi All Bihpur, District-Bhagalpur. -------- Vendors( O.P.)/ Respondent 2nd Set/O.P. 2nd Set/ Respondent 2nd Set =================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta Mr. Dileep Kumar Jha Mr. Rama Nand Poddar Mr. Ravindra Kumar Choudhary residents of Village-Amarpur, P.S. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumari Amrita (Sc(C)3) Mr. Gopal Prasad Roy ================================================= 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.14638 of 2005 (16) dt.19-06-2013 2 / 7
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR C.A.V. ORDER ---------------------- 16 19 -06-2013 The sole petitioner, while invoking writ jurisdiction, has approached this Court with a prayer to set aside the order dated 30.09.2005 passed by Respondent no.2/ Addl. Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in Case no.235 of 2002, whereby, while allowing the revision petition filed by Respondent no.5/ purchaser, he has set aside the order dated 31.03.2001 passed by Respondent no.4/ Dy. Collector Land Reforms, Naugachhiya in Pre-emption Case no.11/2000-01 and order dated 12.07.2002 passed by Respondent no.3/ the Collector, Bhagalpur in Land Ceiling Appeal no.4/2001-02. Short fact of the case is that after Respondent no.5 had purchased the land measuring an area of 0.42 decimal appertaining to Khata no.460, Khesra no.1888, situated at Mauja-Jhandapur, Police Station-Bihpur in the district of Bhagalpur through a registered sale deed dated 01.09.2000 executed by Respondent nos.6 to 12. The petitioner claiming right of pre-emption over the land in dispute filed a petition under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms ( Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 before the Dy. Collector Land Reforms, Naugachhiya. Before the Dy. 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.14638 of 2005 (16) dt.19-06-2013 3 / 7 Collector Land Reforms, the respondent no.5/purchaser appeared and raised objection to the pre-emption case. It was claimed by the purchaser/Respondent no.5 that he was a landless person and, as such, pre-emption application was fit to be rejected. It was also pleaded that the land in dispute was not agricultural but it was residential and after purchase of the land in dispute, he has built up a house over the land in dispute. It was also claimed that the land in dispute was surrounded by residential houses. However, the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms allowed the pre-emption case on the ground that since the pre-emptor /petitioner was adjoining raiyat, he was entitled for pre-emption right over the land in question The pre-emptor/ petitioner had pleaded that in the year 1998 itself he had purchased 0.05 decimal of land out of the same plot from the vendor/ Respondent no.6. The Dy. Collector Land Reforms allowed the pre-emption case in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent no.5 preferred an appeal vide Land Ceiling Appeal no. 04/2001-02 against the order of the Dy.Collector Land Reforms, Naugachhiya before the Respondent no.3/ Appellate Authority, Bhagalpur which, too, was rejected by order dated 12.07.2002. Aggrieved with both the orders, Respondent no.5/purchaser preferred a revision before 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.14638 of 2005 (16) dt.19-06-2013 4 / 7 the learned Member, Board of Revenue and by the impugned order, learned Addl. Member, Board of Revenue has allowed the revision case i.e. Revision Case no. 235 of 2002 on 30.09.2005 and set aside both the orders, which were passed by the learned Dy. Collector Land Reforms and the Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the land in dispute was agricultural land, the petitioner being adjoining raiyat was entitled to claim his pre-emption right and the learned Dy. Collector Land Reforms by assigning detailed reason had allowed the pre-emption case, which was approved by the Collector, Bhagalpur in Land Ceiling Appeal no.04/2001-02. He submits that without any basis, the learned Addl. Member, Board of Revenue has allowed the revision case, which is fit to be quashed. It has further been argued that the claim of Respondent no.5/ purchaser that the land in dispute was surrounded by residential houses is also not sustainable. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, entire matter was examined by the learned Dy. Collector Land Reforms and in perfunctory manner, learned Addl. Member, Board of Revenue has allowed the revision case, which is fit to be set aside. In this case, despite valid service of notice, none appeared on behalf of Respondent nos.6 to 12 i.e. vendors of 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.14638 of 2005 (16) dt.19-06-2013 5 / 7 Respondent no.5. In this case, Respondent no.5 has filed a detailed counter affidavit supporting the order passed by the learned Addl. Member, Board of Revenue. It has been pleaded in the counter affidavit that before the Dy. Collector Land Reforms, Respondent no.5/ purchaser had appeared and filed rejoinder stating therein that he was a landless person and the nature of land was homestead and purchaser had already constructed a house. It has further been pleaded that the pre-emptor/petitioner has his house on the land and adjacent to the land in dispute, homes of other persons have already been built up. It has also been pleaded that adjacent to the disputed land, there is a Harijan Tola. It has specifically been pleaded that he was a landless person and had got no land other than the land in dispute. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record, particularly the affidavit available on record. After going through the impugned order i.e. order dated 30.09.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Member, Board of Revenue in Revision Case No.235 of 2002, the Court is satisfied that the learned Addl. Member, Board of Revenue has committed no error. On perusal of the order passed by the Dy. Collector Land Reforms, it is evident that a specific plea was 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.14638 of 2005 (16) dt.19-06-2013 6 / 7 taken by Respondent no.5/purchaser that he was a landless person. It was further contended that in the sale deed, there was no mentioning of nature of land. The learned Dy. Collector Land Reforms has also noticed in the Khatiyan the nature of land was mentioned as Bhith-II. However, while allowing the pre-emption case, the Dy. Collector Land Reforms has not recorded any finding on the issue as to whether the petitioner was landless person or not. Only on the ground that the pre-emptor/petitioner was adjoining raiyat on the strength of sale deed dated 23.06.1998, whereby 0.05 decimal of land was purchased by the petitioner from vendors, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms had allowed the pre-emption case. The Dy. Collector Land Reforms has not discussed anything on the other issue, whereas learned Addl. Member, Board of Revenue has dealt with the matter in detail and in view of single Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 1997 (2) PLJR 287; Nathuni Singh Yadav & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors has rightly set aside the orders passed by the Dy. Collector Land Reforms as well the Collector, Bhagalpur. The learned Addl. Member, Board of Revenue has considered that the purchaser/Respondent no.5 was a landless person, which was not addressed by the learned Dy. Collector Land Reforms. 7 Patna High Court CWJC No.14638 of 2005 (16) dt.19-06-2013 7 / 7 After going through the impugned order and materials available on record, the Court is satisfied that the order impugned requires no interference. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/-