RAMAYAN RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this writ application challenging the order dated 3/9/1991 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue in Case No. 527 of 1989, by which he has set aside the orders of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Gopalganj dated 21/5/1988 and the order of the Collector, Gopalganj dated 30/10/1989. THE petitioners are said to be the purchasers of the lands of plot no. 3486, khata no. 2, measuring 1 bigha 2 kathas and 12 dhurs, situated in village Simaria, Police Station Kateya, supposedly sold by respondent no. 7 to the petitioner for a consideration amount of Rs. 3000/-, registered on 5/10/1987. THE respondents 5 and 6 being the boundary raiyats filed a pre-emption application under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1962. THE Land Reforms Deputy Collector rejected the pre-emption application on the ground that the sale deed did not appear to be a valid document in view of the fact that the consideration amount is only Rs. 3000/-, wherein it has been stated that the value of the land in question is more than Rs. 80,000/-. THE land in question stands in the name of the ex-landlord Hathua Estate and it has been recorded as the Bakast land of the ex-landlord.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that the land in question was settled by the ex-landlord as far back as in the year 1945, jamabandi was opened in his name and he is paying rent to the ex-landlord. It is submitted that the respondents 5 and 6, who are agnates of respondent no. 7 i.e. the Hathua Estate in order to evict the petitioners from the lands in question filed the present pre-emption application. THE petitioners deny the fact that they have signed on the sale deed executed by respondent no. 7 in his favour. It is also stated that the ex-landlord after vesting of the State submitted returns to the State of Bihar in the name of the petitioners and jamabandi 356 is running in their name. It is asserted that the petitioners are paying rent to the State of Bihar. THE Court, on the basis of the aforesaid facts, after considering that the jamabandi is running in the name of the petitioners, the Hukumnama in favour of the petitioners, and that the value of the land in the sale deed, rejected the pre-emption application. THE Collector, Gopalganj likewise on considering the aforesaid facts also held that the sale deed is not a valid transaction and does not seem to be prima facie genuine. THE Additional Member, Board of Revenue while hearing the matter, issued notice to the vendor. THE vendor filed an affidavit stating therein that he had executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioners for a sum of Rs. 3000/- as the lands in question is incapable of being utilized for agricultural purposes and as such it is asserted that the value of the land was in accordance with the rate of land at the relevant time. THE Additional Member, Board of Revenue rejected the plea of the petitioners and relied on the affidavit, filed on behalf of the vendor respondent no. 7, allowing the pre-emption application on the ground that respondents 5 and 6 were the boundary raiyats. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioners that they being the owner of the lands in question by virtue of the Hukumnama, had no occasion to purchase the lands in question, whereas it has been argued on behalf of the pre-emptor that even if it is accepted that the petitioners were in possession over the lands for one reason or the other, even by virtue of sada hukumnama executed by the ex-landlord, it would be quite natural that the vendor in order to get the value of the land executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the sale deed was never challenged by the petitioners by filing a criminal cases or for that matter, a suit for setting aside the sale deed on the ground that it was forged document. In the facts aforesaid, this Court finds that it is not possible to accept the plea of the petitioners that the sale deed is a forged and fabricated document without there being any material to support the claim. In the result, this writ application is dismissed with leave to the petitioners to take whatever legal steps available to them for challenging the sale deed.