In a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a land ceiling appeal, the court dismissed the petitioner's plea. It held that lower courts had recorded concurrent findings on facts, specifically the petitioner's failure to prove she was landless and the pre-emptor's relationship to the vendor, making judicial interference unavailable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4123 of 2017
Bigani Devi ... … Petitioner
Versus
… …Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, A.C. to G.P.-IV
Order No. 06 Dated: 27.01.2021
The present case is taken up through video conferencing.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 23.05.2017 passed by the Court of Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Board Revision Case No. 02 of 2016 whereby the revision application filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the Additional Collector, Palamau in Land Ceiling Appeal No. XV/08/2014-15 upholding the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (LRDC), Chhattarpur, District- Palamau dated 22.05.2014 passed in Land Ceiling Case No.01 of 2012-13 by which the pre-emption application of the respondent no.2 (pre-emptor) was allowed with respect to the land in question, has been dismissed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a landless lady purchased homestead land appertaining to Khata No. 60, Plot No. 977, Mouza - Namudag, P.S Nawdiha Bazar, District Palamau measuring an area of 11 ½ decimals (hereinafter to be called “the said land”) from the respondent no. 3 through registered sale deed no. 2327 dated 10.04.2012 for construction of her dwelling house as would be evident from the recital of the sale deed. She also got her name mutated in the revenue record of the concerned circle office and was paying rent thereof. After purchase of the said land, she constructed of a dwelling house over the same. The respondent no. 2 as a pre-emptor filed Land Ceiling Case No. 01 of 2012-13 before the LRDC, Chhattarpur, Palamau claiming pre-emption right upon the said land. The petitioner objected the said petition of the pre-emptor, however the same was allowed by the LRDC, Chhatarpur in favour of the
2
respondent no. 2 vide order dated 22.05.2014 holding that the pre-emptor, being a co-sharer of the vendor of the petitioner, was entitled for preemption with respect to the said land. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal before the Additional Collector, Palamau being Land Ceiling Appeal No. XV/08/14-15, however the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2015 affirming the order dated 22.05.2014 passed by the LRDC, Chhatarpur, Palamau. Thereafter, the petitioner filed revision petition before the Court of Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi which was registered as Board Revision Case No. 02 of 2016, however the same was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.05.2017. It is further submitted that the courts below failed to appreciate the fact that the application under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 filed by the respondent no.2 was not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner being a landless lady had purchased a homestead land over which she had already constructed a dwelling house. It is also submitted that the learned LRDC, Chhatarpur, District- Palamau, ought to have ordered for making spot enquiry for ascertaining the nature of the said land and verifying the fact that the petitioner is a landless lady. The pre-emptor is not an adjacent raiyat of the vendor of the petitioner, rather the husband of the petitioner is the co-sharer being the grandson of the recorded tenant.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a landless lady, however the learned LRDC, Chhatarpur has recorded a factual finding that the husband of the petitioner has 10 acres of land and as such she cannot be said to be a landless lady. He also recorded the factual finding that the petitioner could not be able to show that the land was partitioned among the successors of the co-raiyats, rather undisputedly the pre-emptor was found to be the cousin of the vendor namely Baleshwar Mistri (the respondent no.3). The Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi while passing the impugned order dated 23.05.2017, perused the genealogical table and found that the recorded tenant of the said land was Khelawan Mistri, who had four sons namely Munarik Mistri, Bhola Mistri, Nathuni Mistri and Shadhu Mistri. The vendor namely Baleshwar Mistri (respondent no. 3) is the son of Bhola Mistri and the
3
pre-emptor is the son of Nathuni Mistri and thus the vendor namely Baleswhar Mistri (the respondent no. 3) and the pre-emptor namely Shambhu Mistri (the respondent no. 2) are the cousins. The Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi further observed that no documentary evidence was brought on record by the petitioner in support of her claim. 5. I find that there is already concurrent findings of the courts below on the factual plea raised by the petitioner before this court. The petitioner has failed to show any ground so as to seek interference of this Court against the factual findings arrived by the courts below. It was undisputed fact before the courts below that the pre-emptor was the co-sharer and cousin of the vendor namely Baleswhar Mistri (the respondent no. 3). Moreover, the petitioner was also not able to show before the courts below by adducing sufficient evidence that she was a landless lady.
6. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 23.05.2017 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Board Revision Case No. 02 of 2016.
7. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Ritesh/
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can challenge the factual findings of lower courts regarding her status as a landless lady and the validity of the pre-emption order.
Whether there is any legal infirmity in the impugned order dismissing the petitioner's writ petition against the land ceiling proceedings.
Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the Board Revision order deserves interference under the writ jurisdiction.
Bigani Devi
The State of Jharkhand
Shambhu Mistri
Baleshwar Mistri
RAJESH SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court