Sahdeo Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 5 28-08-2012 Petitioner is the vendor of the subject land which became subject matter of a proceeding under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms ( Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land ) Act ( for short ‘Act’) initiated by the respondent no.5 vide case no. 6 of 2003-04. The petitioner, on notice, appeared in the said proceeding and took a stand that the sale made by him on 26.03.2003 in favour of respondent no.6 was subsequently cancelled by execution and registration of a deed of cancellation on 09.06.2003. The purchaser also appeared and 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.15566 of 2008 (5) dt.28-08-2012 contested the proceeding. The respondent –Deputy Collector, Land Reforms by an order dated 31.07.2003 (Annexure-4) allowed the claim of pre-emption raised by the respondent no.5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the purchaser/respondent no.6 preferred an appeal before the respondent Collector vide L.C. Appeal Case No. 89 of 2003-04. On a consideration of the materials on record and after hearing the parties, the appellate authority/Court, by a proceeding dated 09.07.2004 (Annexure-5), dismissed the appeal. The vendor/writ petitioner thereafter filed a Suit vide Title Suit No. 531 of 2004 on 16.09.2004 (Annexure-6) seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 26.03.2003 made by him in favour of the respondent no.6 was invalid/ inoperative transferring no title of the subject land in favour of the transferee namely respondent no.6. The pre-emptor as well as the purchaser (respondent nos. 5 and 6 respectively) were made defendants in the said Suit. In the meanwhile, the purchaser filed a revision application before the Board of Revenue vide case no. 196 of 2004 ( Lal Babu Paswan vs. Jagdish Paswan & Ors). The respondent – Additional Member Board of Revenue by resolution dated

04.07.2008 (Annexure-8) rejected the said revision application. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that deed 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.15566 of 2008 (5) dt.28-08-2012 of cancellation executed by him would nullify the transfer of the title in the subject land in favour of the purchaser/respondent no.6. If the title did not pass then there is no question of invocation of rights under Section 16(3) of the Act. He, however, candidly submitted that a Suit has already been preferred by him in the Court of competent jurisdiction impleading the purchaser as well as the pre-emptor as defendants in which he has sought declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 26.03.2003 be declared inoperative transferring no title to the transferor in the suit land. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5, on the other hand, submits that there is concurrent findings of fact by all the three Court below that the sale had taken effect, and as such, the pre-emptor had a right to claim pre-emption thereagainst which was allowed considering the facts emanating from the records. It is submitted that such concurrent findings of fact should not be interfered by this Court exercising power of judicial review as enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6 has supported the stand of the writ petitioner. I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record. The stand of the writ petitioner is 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.15566 of 2008 (5) dt.28-08-2012 that the sale deed executed by him on 26.3.2003 stood cancelled by execution and registration of deed of cancellation on