Satish Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Mr. Chandrakala Jaiswal For the Respondent/s : Mr. O.P.Upadhyay (Sc(C)2) Mr. Rajiv Kumar, A.C. to G.P. No. XV ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 05-03-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Kumar, learned A.C. to G.P. No. XV. The petitioner, who claims to be pre-emptor has approached this court while invoking its writ jurisdiction against an order dated 31.1.2006 passed by Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, in Case No. 207 of 2000. By the said order learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar has Patna High Court CWJC No.16221 of 2006 (3) dt.05-03-2013 unsettled the order passed by the Collector, Khagaria, in Pre- emption Appeal Case No. 3 of 1995-96. Short fact of the case is that the respondent no. 2 had purchased land in four blocks through a registered sale deed in the year 1994 on payment of consideration amount of Rs. 49,500/-. The respondent no. 2 had purchased 9 Kathas of land appertaining to plot no. 621, khata no. 1118, village – Saundh, P.S. – Parwatta , District – Khagaria. Though the sale deed was executed on 13/1/1994 it was got registered on 27.4.1994. The petitioner claiming adjoining raiyat raised claim of pre-emption and filed a case under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “Ceiling Act”) before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Gogri, (hereinafter referred to as “the D.C.L.R.”) and as such, a case was registered vide Pre-emption Case No. 7 of 1994. The learned D.C.L.R. by order dated

25.10.1994 rejected the pre-emption case filed by the petitioner primarily on two grounds. Firstly, the pre-emption case was filed after expiry of period of limitation, and secondly, the nature of land as per the D.C.L.R. was not agriculture but the land in question was purchased for the purposes of construction of “Nursing Home” over the disputed land. The petitioner aggrieved Patna High Court CWJC No.16221 of 2006 (3) dt.05-03-2013 with the order of D.C.L.R. approached the Collector, Khagaria and filed Pre-emption Appeal Case No. 3 of 1995-96. The learned Collector, Khagaria, by its order dated 9.8.2000 allowed the appeal. The purchaser aggrieved with the order of appellate court approached the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, by filing Case No. 207 of 2000, which was finally allowed. The learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, by its order dated 31.1.2006 while setting aside the order of Collector, Khagaria, approved the order passed by the D.C.L.R. Meaning thereby that petitioner’s claim of pre-emption was finally rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has argued that the pre-emption case was filed within time since period of limitation was to be counted from the date of registration of the sale deed, not from the date of execution of the sale deed, and as such, the preemption case was filed in time. In support of his argument that period of limitation will commence from the date of registration of the sale deed, he has relied on a judgment reported 1974 PLJR 360 (JAWAHAR LAL & OTHERS VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA, & OTHERS ). He further submits that though in the sale deed the Patna High Court CWJC No.16221 of 2006 (3) dt.05-03-2013 object for purchase was mentioned as construction of “Nursing Home”, but fact remains that the land in dispute was agriculture and petitioner was adjoining raiyat, and as such, the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, has grossly erred in setting aside the order of Collector, Khagaria. He submits that it is true that right of pre-emption is a weak right, but as per settled law, once there is a right as per statute and it is established , then in that event the learned Board of Revenue, Bihar, had got no option but to allow the claim of pre-emption. In support of his argument regarding the statutory right, he has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this court reported in 1997 BBCJ 396 (Md. Osman @ Abdul Jalil Vs. The State of Bihar & others ). On aforesaid grounds he has prayed for setting aside the order passed by Additional Member , Board of Revenue, Bihar. Sri Rajiv Kumar, learned A.C. to G.P. No. XV, has supported the order passed by Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, as well as order passed by D.C.L.R, Gogri. Though the writ petition was filed in the year 2006, till date, no notice was directed to be issued to either purchaser or vendors of the land, and as such, without issuance of notice to the private respondents the matter was heard. Besides hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and Patna High Court CWJC No.16221 of 2006 (3) dt.05-03-2013 State, I have also perused the materials available on record. On going through the materials available on record it emerges that respondent no. 2 , who was an unemployed M.B.B.S. doctor with a view to start his career had earlier approached for obtaining loan for construction of a “Nursing Home” and with a prime object to build a “Nursing Home” to start with his career he had negotiated with the vendors and finally negotiation was settled for purchase of 9 Kathas of land on total consideration amount of Rs. 49,500/-. The purchaser had purchased land of- course through one sale deed but land were in four blocks and finally the sale deed was registered on 27.4.1994. Of-course, this court is of the opinion that the pre-emption application was filed within time, fact remains that object for purchase of the land was to build a “Nursing Home” by the purchaser, who is respondent no. 2. Meaning thereby, that purchaser had not purchased the land for agriculture purpose but to start with his career, he had purchased the land for construction of “Nursing Home”. In that view of the matter the court is of the opinion that nature of land as per object of purchase may not be considered as agriculture, and accordingly the order passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, is not required to be interfered with. Moreover, purchase was made long back in the year 1994. I do Patna High Court CWJC No.16221 of 2006 (3) dt.05-03-2013 not find any ground for interference. The writ petition stands dismissed. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)