JANARDAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for respondent nos.5 and 6. In view of the nature of the order we propose to pass, we do not consider it necessary to take note of and/or discuss the facts of the case except to the extent necessary so as not to prejudice the case on either side.

(2.) On 16.2.1985, the petitioner purchased Plot Nos.686, 689 and 705 appertaining to Khata No.412, in village Turki from respondent no.7. Respondent Nos.5 and 6, who are father and son claiming to be adjoining raiyat filed a pre-emption application. The application came to be allowed by the D. C. L. R. , Saran at Chapra in Land Ceiling Case No.12 of 1985-86. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 6.6.1990, by the Additional Collector, Saran in Land Ceiling Case No.50 of 1989, affirmed in revision by the Board of Revenue in Revision Case No.430 of 1990.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that one pre-emption application was filed in context of the three plots by respondent nos.5 and 6. The petitioner specifically raised an objection that Plot Nos.685 and 687 was mortgaged by one Kawaldhari Singh and which had been redeemed by his son Sita Ram Singh who sold Plot No.687 to Amanat Khan on 29.1.1975 and Plot No.685 to Md. Faruk Afzal Khan on 22.3.1975. The name of the purchasers then came to be entered in Government records and rent receipts were also issued in their names. This aspect of the matter raised with all its details has not been dealt with in the final adjudication by the D. C. L. R. In appeal, the issue was specifically raised again when in a similar manner the authority proceed to adjudicate the matter on basis of Plot No.702 only and likewise the revisional Court also did not dealt with this aspect. Learned counsel for respondent nos.5 and 6 urged that three Courts having arrived at a finding of fact that they were adjoining raiyat of the plot in question, this Court should not interfere with it in exercise of writ jurisdiction as all relevant factual aspects of the case have already been examined by the authorities at three separate levels. There can be no quarrel with the very broad proposition raised on behalf of respondent nos.5 and 6. It stands well settled by several judicial precedent that this Court is reluctant to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by successive revenue Court. But, in the facts of the present case, we find that the findings of fact with regard to Plot Nos.685 and 687 has been arrived at without proper consideration of relevant materials and on the contrary ignoring from consideration matters which prima facie appear relevant. If that be the position, the findings become arbitrary and unsustainable. We are supported in our prima facie view from the simple fact that the story of mortgage and redemption of the mortgage with details thereof finds confirmation in the pre-emption application at Paragraph-6, in which the fact of mortgage is admitted but redemption is denied in very general terms.