ASHOK MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS -purchasers, in both the cases, are husband and wife. The pre -emptors in both these cases are the same. The issues involved (in both the cases) are the same. With the consent of the parties, both the applications are being disposed of by the order. Relevant facts shall be drawn from C.W.J.C. No. 785 of 2006. On 22.8.1997, 4 kathas, 19 dhurs, 19 dhurki and 15 furki of land appertaining to Khata No. 108, Khesra Nos. 884 and 885, Touji No. 525 in Village - Madhavpur in the district of Khagaria was vended by respondent No. 7 in favour of the writ petitioner. On the same day, same area appertaining to Khata No. 108, Khesra Nos. 884 and 885 of the same description was/were vended in favour of the writ petitioner (purchaser). Two cases being L.C. Case Nos. 4 of 1997 and 5 of 1997 were lodged under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") by respondent Nos. 5 and 6. By a common order dated 9.6.1998 (Annexure -3), the same were dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid common order, the pre -emptors (respondent Nos. 5 and 6) filed appeals being Appeal Nos. 2/1998 -99 and 3/1998 -99. Both the appeals were heard analogous and by common order dated 9.8.2000 (Annexure -4), the appellate authority rejected both the appeals concluding therein that both the pre -emptors failed to demonstrate that each of them were adjoining raiyat(s) and/or co -sharer of the vendors of the lands in question. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, two revision applications were filed before the Board of Revenue vide Case Nos. 205 of 2000 and 206 of 2000. The respondent Board of Revenue by a common resolution dated 29.11.2005 allowed the revision application(s) preferred by the pre - emptors (respondent Nos. 5 and 6) passaging filing of the present writ petitions.

(2.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the petitioner, vendor (respondent No. 7) and the State. Pre - emptors (respondent Nos. 5 and 6) have not appeared in the present batch of petitions to oppose/resist the claim of purchasers/writ petitioners.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the vendor has accepted vending of the lands in favour of the writ petitioner. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State supported the order (Annexure -5) passed by the respondent Board of Revenue.