SHEOJI MAHTO Vs. ADDITIONAL MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Patna High court, made on 10/12/1984 in CWJC No. 5491 of 1984 dismissing the writ petition in limine.

(2.) The admitted facts are that Sukhdeo Rai is the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. Gulabo Devi and others had purchased one Katha of land towards the east of the land of the appellants from Sukhdeo Rai by a sale deed executed on 31/12/1979 which was got registered on 8/2/1980. The appellants had filed an application for pre-emption of the land on the ground that he, being the adjoining raiyat, by operation of Section 16 (3 of the Bihar Lands Ceiling Act, was entitled to pre-emption of the said land from the contesting respondent. The tribunal held in favour of the appellants and ultimately the Collector in the proceedings dated 11/8/1984 held against the appellants. The High court has dismissed the writ petition in limine, as stated earlier. The question, therefore, is whether the view of the Collector is correct in law. Section 16 (3 (i) reads as under:

(3.) A reading of Section 16 (3 (i) clearly indicates that when any transfer of land is made after the commencement of the Act, to any person other than a co-sharer or a raiyat of adjoining land, any co-sharer of the transferor or any raiyat holding land adjoining the land transferred, shall be entitled within three months of the date of registration of the document of transfer, to make an application before the Collector in the prescribed manner for the transfer of the land to him on the terms and conditions contained in the said deed. It is not in dispute that the tribunal below held the appellants to be raiyats holding land adjoining to the land sold to the respondents by registered sale deed. An application was also filed within three months from the date of the registration of the document. Under these circumstances, the two conditions having been satisfied by operation of Section 16 (3 (i) , the appellants are entitled to pre-emption of the said land. The High court, therefore, was clearly in error in refusing to entertain the writ petition dismissed in limine. The Collector was also wrong in allowing the appeal.