RANJOO DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. B.P. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. K.D. Chatterji, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as also learned Counsel for the State. However, no one appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 despite valid service of notices upon them.

(2.) THIS writ application has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 15.12.1990, as contained in Annexure-7, passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms in Ceiling Case No. 29 of 1990-91 allowing application of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 under Section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act, for quashing order dated 5.2.1997, as contained in Annexure-9., passed by the Collector, Patnain Ceiling Appeal No. 27 of 1991-92 upholding the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms and also for quashing the order as contained in Annexure-11 dated 8.1.1998 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, affirming the orders, as contained in Annexures-7 and 9, respectively.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, on the other hand, submitted that the preemptors are the rightful owners of 32 decimals of land of plot No. 195 on the basis of four valid purchases made from a branch of the survey recorded tenant and in that way, they have acquired ownership over 32 decimals of land of plot No. 195, and, thus, came in possession of the same. It is further submitted by learned Counsel that the lands purchased by the preemptors by four sale-deeds are in one block in the southern boundary of the disputed land. It is further submitted that they have been mutated for the land they had purchased and rent receipts are being granted to them. It is also submitted that 32 decimals of land besides the land in question was purchased by the preemptors much before the registered deed executed in favour of the petitioner dated 18.5.1990 and even much before the deed of gift dated 14.12.1988 created in favour of Siddheshwar Pandey, who is said to be the vendor of the petitioner. LEARNED Counsel further submitted that the petitioner could not prove her claim before the authorities that she was the purchaser of the land already purchased by the preemptors, and, therefore, the authorities under the Act allowed the claim of the preemptors under Section 16(3) of the Act holding them as adjoining raiyats to the land in question.