This judgment dismissed a writ petition challenging a revisional order granting pre-emptor's claim over vended plots. The court affirmed the Board of Revenue's finding that the petitioner-purchaser failed to establish he was the adjoining raiyat required by law.
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9030 of 2009 With
Interlocutory Application No.7313 of 2011
=========================================================== Paras Nath Rai, son of Gopaljee Rai, resident of Village- Ramgarh, Tole Bhulauni, P.O. Simariya, Police Station- Nautan, District- Siwan. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus
.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh Mr. Arvind Kr. Pandey Mr. Abhishek Mr. Atal Bihari For the Respondent No.1,2 & 7: Mr. Ajay, G.A. XII For the Respondent No. 3 to 6 : Mr. Raghav Prasad
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 10-12-2015
Re.: Interlocutory Application No. 7313 of 2011
The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the heirs of the sole petitioner stating therein that during the pendency of the writ petition, the sole petitioner Paras Nath Rai died on 04.08.2011 leaving behind his heirs and legal representatives, fully detailed in paragraph-4 of the instant interlocutory application. All the proposed heirs have entered their appearance through their lawyer by filing their duly executed vakalatnama in his favour.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents do not raise any objection to the prayer for substitution made in the instant interlocutory application.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9030 of 2009 dt.10-12-2015
2/6
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prayer for substitution is allowed.
The instant Interlocutory Application thus stands finally disposed of.
Re: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9030 of 2009
With the consent of the parties, main writ petition has been taken up for consideration on merits.
Heard the parties.
The present writ petition arises out of a pre-emption proceeding under Section 16(3) of The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (In short ‘the Land Ceiling Act’). The petitioner is the purchaser, respondent no.3 is the pre-emptor and the respondent no.4 to 6 are the vendors of the vended plot no. 1237 area 5 katha 4 dhurs and plot no. 1238 area 5 katha 18 dhurs and 5 dhurkies.
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 20.12.2008 passed in Board Case No. 69 of 2000 along with Board Case No. 70 of 2000 by the respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition, whereby the aforesaid revision application filed under Section 32 of the Land Ceiling Act by the respondent no.3 was allowed, after reversing and setting aside the orders passed by the courts below and thereby the claim of preemption raised on behalf of the respondent no.3 with respect to the vended plots has been allowed.
This case has slightly a chequered history. The pre-emption application filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 was originally allowed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Siwan by his order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.9030 of 2009 dt.10-12-2015
3/6
12.06.1989 (Annexure-3) on the ground that pre-emptor is the boundary raiyat of the vended plots as also the co-sharer of the vendors, and the purchaser failed to establish that he is also the adjoining raiyat. The purchaser- writ petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, preferred appeal before the respondent District Collector, Siwan, which was finally allowed by the order dated 31.03.1998 (Annexure-4) passed in Land Ceiling Appeal No.329 of 1989-90 and the order passed by the S.D.M., Siwan was set aside on the ground that before passing the final order, local inspection was not made by the Collector under the Land Ceiling Act. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the original authority with a direction to make local inspection and thereafter pass a fresh order.
It appears that in the light of the aforesaid order of remand the local inspection was made by the D.C.L.R., Siwan in compliance of the order passed by the S.D.M., Siwan, and he accordingly submitted his report on 1st August, 1998, which has been brought on record as Annexure-5. According to the aforesaid enquiry report, the writ petitioner-purchaser is not the adjoining raiyat of the vended plots. The writ petitioner claims to have filed an objection to the aforesaid enquiry report on the ground that he was not present at the time of inspection. However, the S.D.M., Siwan, by his order dated 16.01.1999, rejected the claim of pre-emption raised by the respondent no.3. The aforesaid order dated 16.01.1999 has been brought on record as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The pre-emptorrespondent no.3, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, preferred appeal before the respondent District Collector, Siwan, but the aforesaid appeal was dismissed by the order dated 28.03.2000 (Annexure-7) essentially on the ground of limitation and not on merit. The pre-emptor- respondent no. 3, being aggrieved by the aforesaid
Patna High Court CWJC No.9030 of 2009 dt.10-12-2015
4/6
order, approached the Board of Revenue under Section 32 of the Land Ceiling Act giving rise to Board Case No. 69 of 2000, which was finally heard and allowed by the impugned order dated 20.12.2008 (Annexure-9) by the respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being purchaser, as also the adjoining raiyat of the vended plots, the claim of pre-emption raised on behalf of the respondent no.3 was rightly rejected by the S.D.M. and that could not have been interfered with by the respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue. According to him, the order passed by the respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna is fit to be set aside on that ground alone and the claim of pre-emption of the respondent no.3 is fit to be rejected. In support of his above contention, he placed reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Savitri Devi vs. State of Bihar [2013(4) PLJR 360] .
The matter has been contested by the respondent no. 3. Learned counsel appearing behalf of the respondent no.3 submits that, in fact, the petitioner is not the adjoining raiyat of the vended plots. According to him, in view of order of remand passed by the respondent District Collector, Siwan, the local inspection was made by the D.C.L.R., Siwan, whereafter it was found that the petitioner was not the adjoining raiyat of the vended plots. It is further contended that the respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, being the final court of facts and it having recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner is not the boundary raiyat of the vended plot, the impugned order may not be interfered with and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9030 of 2009 dt.10-12-2015
5/6
Learned G.A. 12 appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1, 2 and 7, has supported the impugned order and contends that the petitioner has not been able to point out any procedural error or legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. According to him, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on the record, this Court finds that there is no dispute that the pre-emptor- respondent no.3 and the vendorsrespondent no. 4 to 6 are the descendants of their common ancestor. They all were having their shares in the vended plots. This Court further finds that in the first round of litigation, the matter was remitted back by the respondent, District Collector, Siwan with a direction to hold local inspection and accordingly local inspection was held by the D.C.L.R., Siwan, whereafter it was found that the purchaser- writ petitioner is not the adjoining raiyat of the vended plots. The respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna has also come to a conclusion that the writ petitioner is not the adjoining raiyat of the vended plots, whereas the pre-emptor is not only the co-sharers, but also the adjoining raiyat of the vended plots. By recording the aforesaid findings of facts, the claim of pre-emption of respondent no. 3 has been allowed by the impugned revisional order dated 20.12.2008 (Annexure-9).
There is absolutely no quarrel about the principles of law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Savitri Devi vs. State of Bihar (Supra), but that will not help the petitioner as in the present case the purchaser has failed to establish that he is also the adjoining raiyat of the vended plots and his claim was negatived on the basis of local inspection held by the D.C.L.R., Siwan and he
Patna High Court CWJC No.9030 of 2009 dt.10-12-2015
6/6
has been non-suited by the respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, by recording a finding of facts that the petitioner is not the adjoining raiyat of the vended plots. In above view of the matter, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 20.12.2008 (Annexure-8) passed by the respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna.
The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
BTiwary/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's claim of pre-emption as an adjoining raiyat is sustainable when the Board of Revenue findings establish he is not an adjoining raiyat.
Whether the impugned revisional order dated 20.12.2008 allowing the pre-emption claim should be set aside under Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Savitri Devi vs. State of BiharReferred¶3233
Savitri Devi vs. State of Bihar [2013(4) PLJR 360]
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Paras Nath Rai and others (Heirs)
State of Bihar
Collector, Siwan
Brahma Bhagat and others
Tirath Nath Prasad
Ram Janak Prasad
Birendra Prasad Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
