Dismissed¶39

Dheeraj Kumar Jha v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC3 Apr 2025CWJC/15009/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Preemption under section 16(3) Bihar Land Reforms (Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961; repeal/deletion of section 16(3) and abatement of pending preemption cases (Act 6 of 2009); BLT Case No.315/2016 abatement order dated 29.04.2019; cancellation/inoperativity of preemptor's sale deed dated 25.07.2009; representations to Sub-Registrar Naugachia and District Magistrate Bhagalpr ignored; correct forum for enforcing BLT orders — contempt application under section 12 of the BLT Act, 2009 versus fresh writ petition; Bhagalpur land dispute (Khata No.335, Plot Nos.7240-7241, Mauza Kharika); writ application dismissed, Patna High Court, judge Satyavrat Verma, order dated 03-04-2025.

What did the court decide?

The Court is in complete agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the State and finds no merit in the writ application.

Dheeraj Kumar Jha Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether, following the repeal of section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act and the BLT's order dated 29.04.2019 holding Preemption Case No.11/2003-04 abated, the authorities were duty bound to treat the sale deed dated 25.07.2009 executed in favour of respondent no.7 as not operative / to cancel it. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

Endorsing the State's position, the abatement ordered by the BLT (in view of Act 6 of 2009) demonstrates that the entire preemption proceeding initiated at the behest of respondent no.7 abated; the consequences of the abatement shall follow, but must be worked out in accordance with law.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The Court is in complete agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the State and finds no merit in the writ application.

¶38

Key takeaways

Endorsing the State's contention, where an authority does not give effect to a BLT order, the petitioners ought to have moved before the BLT seeking appropriate relief, or before an authority/forum in accordance with law, instead of moving before this Court.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Satyavrat Verma, J.), CWJC No.15009 of 2021, decided 03-04-2025 — Writ dismissed; remedy for non-implementation of BLT order lies before the BLT, not the High Court. Petitioners, purchasers under two registered sale deeds dated 09.10.2003, sought directions that the sale deed dated 25.07.2009, executed and registered in favour of preemptor respondent no.7 pursuant to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms' order dated 07.05.2009 in Preemption Case No.11/2003-04 under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, be treated as inoperative — notwithstanding that successive tiers (Collector, order dated 31.01.2012; Divisional Commissioner, order dated 25.10.2012) had upheld the preemptor and that the BLT, after repeal of section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act, had held by order dated 29.04.2019 in BLT Case No.315/2016 that the preemption case abated, and despite unanswered representations to the Sub-Registrar (07.09.2020) and the District Magistrate (05.04.2021). Agreeing with the State, the Court took the view that if a BLT order is not complied with by an authority, the petitioners ought to seek appropriate relief before the BLT — including by a contempt application under section 12 of the BLT Act, 2009 — or before an authority/forum in accordance with law, rather than move this Court; the consequences of abatement shall follow but must be effected in accordance with law. The writ application was accordingly dismissed as lacking merit. No precedent was cited; no quantum involved.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15009 of 2021

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Dheeraj Kumar Jha S/o Shri Rajendra Jha R/o Village- Tulsipur, P.S.- Kharik Bazar, Naugachhia, District- Bhagalpur.

¶4

Neeraj Kumar Jha S/o Shri Rajendra Jha R/o Village- Tulsipur, P.S.- Kharik Bazar, Naugachhia, District- Bhagalpur.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, New Secretariat, Patna.

¶8

The Commissioner Bhagalpur.

¶9

The District Magistrate Bhagalpur.

¶10

That Additional Collector Bhagalpur.

¶11

The Deputy Collector Land Reforms Naugachia District- Bhagalpur.

¶12

The Registrar Registration Office Bhagalpur District- Bhagalpur.

¶13

Sri Diwakar Ray S/o Late Hari nath Ray

¶14

Smt. Urmila Devi W/o Late Girwar Roy R/o Village- Tulsipur, P.S.- Kharik Bazar, District- Bhagalpur.

¶15

... ... Respondent/s

¶16

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Birendra Prasad AC to SC-19. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶17

5 03-04-2025

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

¶19

AC to SC-19 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the land pertaining to Khata No.335, Plot No.7240 and 7241, area 2.49 acres at Mauza-Kharika, Thana No.47/1, P.S. Kharika, District-Bhagalpur was purchased by the petitioner through two registered sale deeds bearing

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.15009 of 2021(5) dt.03-04-2025 2/6

¶22

no.13592 dated 09.10.2003 and 13593 dated 09.10.2003 and the petitioners thereafter came in possession of the same. It is next submitted that the private respondent no.7 (Diwakar Ray) claimed preemption in terms of the provisions of section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 hereinafter referred as the Ceiling Act and accordingly filed an application on 03.01.2004 before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms at Naugachia, leading to registration of L.C. Case No.11/2003-04. The Preemption Case No.11/2003-04 was decided in favour of the respondent no.7 by an order dated 07.05.2009 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Naugachia. The petitioners accordingly filed an appeal before the Collector, Bhagalpur against the order dated 07.05.2009 in Preemption Case No.11/2003-04, being Ceiling Appeal No.18/2009-10, in appeal notices were issued and the respondent no.7 herein appeared and finally the appeal was dismissed by an order dated 31.01.2012 passed by the Collector, Bhagalpur.

¶23

The petitioners accordingly filed Revision Case No.12/2011-12 before the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur impugning the order dated 31.01.2012 passed in Appeal by the Collector, Bhagalpur. The Revision Case No.12/2011-12 was

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.15009 of 2021(5) dt.03-04-2025 3/6

¶25

dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner by an order dated 25.10.2012 (Annexure-1), thereafter, the petitioners filed BLT Case No.315/2016 against the order passed in Revision Case No.12/2011-12 by the Divisional Commissioner. The learned BLT issued notice to the respondent no.7, accordingly the respondent no.7 appeared.

¶26

It is submitted that during the pendency of BLT Case No.315/2016, Section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act was repealed, as a consequence thereof, all cases of preemption pending adjudication abated. The learned BLT by order dated 29.04.2019 (Annexure-2) in BLT Case No.315/2016 held that the case abated. The learned counsel submitted that since the BLT by its order dated 29.04.2019 in BLT Case No.315/2016 held that the case abated, as such, the status of the petitioners as purchaser was restored and the right of the private respondent no.7 to claim preemption was forfeited.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that the preemptor i.e. respondent no.7 after passing of the order by the D.C.L.R. had applied for execution of the sale deed with regard to the land in dispute, accordingly, the sale deed was executed and registered on 25.07.2009, accordingly, the petitioners in terms of order dated 29.04.2019 passed by the

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.15009 of 2021(5) dt.03-04-2025 4/6

¶29

BLT submitted a representation before the Sub-Registrar, Naugachia with a prayer to cancel the sale deed dated 25.07.2009 executed in favour of the respondent no.7, as Section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act was deleted and the pending case had thus abated as held by the BLT, hence the status of the petitioners as purchaser revived as would manifest from the representation of the petitioners dated 07.09.2020 (Annexure-3), when no action was taken, the petitioners by their representation dated 05.04.2021 (Annexure-4) represented before the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur for cancelling the sale deed executed in favour of respondent no.7, but still no action has been taken and the petitioners are running from pillar to post, when the authorities are duty bound to notify that the sale deed executed by respondent no.5 in favour of the respondent no.1 is not operative.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently rebuts the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. It is submitted that the order of the BLT records that the preemption proceeding abated in view of the deletion of Section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act, as such, there was no occasion for the petitioners to move before this Court by filing the instant writ application for a direction

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.15009 of 2021(5) dt.03-04-2025 5/6

¶32

upon the respondent no.6 to treat the sale deed dated 25.07.2009, as inoperative, in view of amendment in Section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act and to hold that two sale deeds dated 09.10.2003 executed by respondent no.8 in favour of the petitioners are still valid. It is further submitted that it appears that the instant writ application has been filed seeking clarification of the order passed by the BLT. It is also submitted that if the order of the BLT is not being complied by the authority, in that event, the petitioners have remedy of approaching the BLT by filing a Contempt application, as BLT has power to initiate contempt under Section 12 of the BLT Act, 2009.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State further submits that once the BLT had held that in view of the provision of Act 6 of 2009, the present case shall be deemed to be abated that in itself demonstrates that the entire preemption proceeding, which was initiated at the behest of respondent no.7 abated and as such the consequences of the abatement shall follow but then the same has to be done in accordance with law.

¶34

The learned State counsel further reiterates and submits that if the order of the BLT is not being given effect to

¶35

Patna High Court CWJC No.15009 of 2021(5) dt.03-04-2025 6/6

¶36

by any authority, in that event, the petitioners instead of moving before this Court ought to have moved before the BLT, seeking appropriate relief or before an authority/forum in accordance with law.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent is not in a position to rebut the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶38

The Court is in complete agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, as such finds no merit in the instant writ application.

¶39

Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed.

¶40

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶41

amit/-

¶42

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioners purchased Khata No.335, Plot Nos.7240 and 7241 (area 2.49 acres, Mauza-Kharika) through two registered sale deeds nos.13592 and 13593, both dated 09.10.2003, and came into possession.¶22
Prior proceeding
Private respondent no.7 (Diwakar Ray) claimed preemption under section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act and filed an application on 03.01.2004 before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Naugachia, registered as L.C. Case No.11/2003-04.¶22
Prior proceeding
Preemption Case No.11/2003-04 decided in favour of respondent no.7 by order dated 07.05.2009 of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Naugachia.¶22
Prior proceeding
Petitioners' Ceiling Appeal No.18/2009-10 before the Collector, Bhagalpur against the order dated 07.05.2009 was dismissed by order dated 31.01.2012.¶22
Prior proceeding
Revision Case No.12/2011-12 before the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur, impugning the Collector's order dated 31.01.2012, was dismissed by order dated 25.10.2012 (Annexure-1).¶25
Prior proceeding
Petitioners filed BLT Case No.315/2016 against the order passed in Revision Case No.12/2011-12; notice was issued and respondent no.7 appeared.¶25
Prior proceeding
During pendency of BLT Case No.315/2016, section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act was repealed; by order dated 29.04.2019 (Annexure-2) the BLT held that the case abated.¶26
Prior proceeding
After the D.C.L.R. order, respondent no.7 applied for execution of the sale deed and it was executed and registered on 25.07.2009.¶27
Prior proceeding
In terms of the BLT order dated 29.04.2019, petitioners submitted a representation dated 07.09.2020 (Annexure-3) before the Sub-Registrar, Naugachia praying cancellation of the sale deed dated 25.07.2009; no action was taken.¶29
Prior proceeding
Petitioners represented before the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur by representation dated 05.04.2021 (Annexure-4) for cancelling the sale deed executed in favour of respondent no.7; still no action was taken.¶29

Dheeraj Kumar Jha v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeraj Kumar Jha v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Masud Alam @ Md. Masud Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Kavita Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Umesh Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Umesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rajan Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar