Dismissed

Sri Ram Sahani v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC9 Dec 2015CWJC/7520/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's pre-emption claim. The court held that the rejection was valid as the purchaser was established as the boundary raiyat, with no procedural error or statutory violation found, and emphasized the weak nature of pre-emption rights in the absence of merit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; parties to bear their own costs.

Sri Ram Sahani Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7520 of 2004

¶2

====================================================== Sri Ram Sahani son of Late Budhu Sahani, resident of village- Karanpur Bochahan Tole Kakra chak, P.O. and P.S. Bochahan, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3. Additional Collector, Muzaffarpur. 4. Deputy Collector of Land Reforms, Muzaffarpur. 5. Abdul Majid son of Late Nisarat Hussain, resident of village- Ratanpura P.O. Gharbhara P.S. Bochahan, District- Muzaffarpur. 6. Sri Ram Briksha Sahani, 7. Sri Rajendra Sahani, Both are sons of late Lakshaman Sahani, resident of village- Karanpur Bochahan Tole Kakra chak, P.S. Bochahan, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kaushalesh Choudhary For the Respondent No.1 to 5: Mr. Mithilesh Kr. Upadhyay, AC to GP 10 For the Respondent No. 6 : Mr.Shambhu Nath Jha Mr. Kula Nand Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 6 09-12-2015 Heard the parties. The present writ petition arises out of a proceeding under Section 16(3) of The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. The writ petition is the pre-emptor, respondent no. 5 is the purchaser and the respondent no. 6 and 7 are the vendors of the vended plot, total area being 13 katha.

¶3

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 07.11.2002 passed in Case No. 98 of 1999 by the respondent Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, as contained in Annexure-1, whereby the aforesaid revision case filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed and the orders passed by the original authority i.e. the respondent D.C.L.R., Muzaffarpur (East) as also the appellate authority i.e. the

¶4

Patna High Court CWJC No.7520 of 2004 (6) dt.09-12-2015

¶5

2/2

¶6

respondent Additional Collector, Muzaffarpur have been affirmed.

¶7

From the materials available on the record, it is apparent that by recording concurrent finding of facts the claim of preemption of the writ petitioner has been rejected by all the three authorities on the ground that the respondent no. 5 is not only the purchaser, rather he is the boundary raiyat also of the vended plot. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the finding recorded by all the three authorities that the purchaser is also the boundary raiyat of the vended plot is not on the basis of any valid evidence, rather on the evidence of an stranger, which could not have been taken into consideration. In support of his above contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Prasad Singh v. Dulhin Phulkumari Devi [2010 (2) (SC) PLJR 167] .

¶8

It is well settled that the right of pre-emption though is a statutory right, but is a very weak right, which can be defeated by any legitimate means.

¶9

Since the claim of pre-emption of the petitioner has been rejected by all the three statutory authorities and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not been able to point out any procedural error or violation of any statutory provision, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned passed by the authorities concerned.

¶10

The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

¶11

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

¶12

BTiwary/-

¶13

Sri Ram Sahani v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ram Sahani v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bibi Amina Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sheikh Manni Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Akhtari Khatoon and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Anant Prasad Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sushila Devi and Ors. Vs Niranjan Prasad and Ors.

Naresh Mohan Mandal Vs Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and Ors.