HARENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.7.1984 passed by the D.C.L.R., Siwan, the order dated 7.11.1989 passed by the Collector, Siwan and order dated 17.1.1991 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue passed in a case under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961.

(2.) The petitioners are the original purchaser whereas respondent no. 5 is the pre-emptor. Respondent nos. 6 and 7 are vendees of the land which is under dispute. Petitioners purchased 1 kattha 18 dhurs of Khata No. 424, Plot No. 1844 situated in village Gangpur Siswan, by three sale deeds executed on 16.3.1983 and registered on 25.1.1984 The sale deed with respect to 13 dhurs each were in the name of the petitioner no. 1 and his wife petitioner no. 2 whereas 12 dhurs of land were in the name of Vyas Singh their son. Respondent no. 5 filed an application for pre-emption on 3.2.1994 claiming to be a boundary raiyat of plot no. 1844.The D.C.L.R. allowed the respondent's application for pre-emption which was challenged by the petitioners in appeal and revision which were dismissed.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the respondent no. 5 is a boundary raiyat. In fact it has been stated that the respondents possesses 3 katthas 15 dhurs of land pertaining to plot no. 1845 and 2 katthas and 10 dhurs of land pertaining to plot no. 1864 which is on the eastern boundary of plot no. 1844. Besides which he also possess land on the southern boundary pertaining to plot no. 2113. The only question that has been raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the lands which have been purchased by the three petitioners is very small measuring about 1 kattha and 18 dhurs. It is further stated that in the sale deed itself it has been mentioned that the lands have been purchased for the purposes of constructing a house and that the petitioners for the past 25 years have remained in possession of the land and had built their huts on the land. It is submitted that this land cannot be used for agricultural purposes and, therefore, application for pre-emption should have been dismissed by all the Courts.