NAND KISHORE PANDEY Vs. P P AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Board of Revenue dated the 16th October, 1968, passed in Case No. 208 of 1968 (Annexure '6') setting aside the order of the Additional Collector, Palamau, dated the 1st July, 1968 (Annexure '4') and restoring the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Daltongani, dated the 4th April, 1967 (Annexure '3') in an application under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act 12 of 1962), hereinafter referred to as "the Act'.

(2.) Haricharan Pandey and Rajendra Pandey, respondents 4 and 5, by a registered sale deed dated the 2nd September, 1966, transferred 0.03 acres of plot No. 631 and 0.05 acres of Plot No. 632, both plots of Khata No. 59 of village Narsinghpur Pathra, Police Station Chainpur, District Palamau, for Rs. 2,000/- to the petitioners. Jai Shri Pandey, respondent No. 3, filed an application under Section 16 (3) of the Act against the petitioners and respondents 4 and 5 for the transfer of the lands to him on the terms and conditions contained in the sale deed. Jai Shri Pandey, respondent No. 3, claimed that 0.05 acres of plot No. 616 and northern portion of plot No. 616 measuring 0.15 acres belonged to him by virtue of a decision of Partition Suit No. 66 of 1949, and Plot No. 630 was acquired by him by a sale deed dated the 22nd November, 1964. These plots are adjoining the lands involved.

(3.) The claim of the petitioners, on the other hand, was that they were co-sharers in khata No. 59 and claimed plot No. 614 adjacent to the land involved in the case. The Subdivisional Officer found that the northern portions of plots 616 and 630 were contiguous south and west respectively of lands involved and that only a very small portion of plot No. 614 touched the southern portion of the said lands. He further held that the provisions of Section 36 (3) of the Act were applicable not to the khatas but to the plots. In this view of his findings, he allowed the claim of Jai Shri Pandey, respondent No. 3.