RAMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application arises out of a proceeding initiated by respondent no. 5 under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act with respect to transfer of certain lands situated in Mouja Govindpur under Khata nos. 47 and 48 by a registered deed of sale dated 8th September, 1976 in favour of the petitioner. The claim was made on the ground that respondent no. 5 being an adjacent raiyat to the vended lands. In her show cause the petitioner inter alia, took plea that respondent no. 6, the vendor, was her bcnamidar and that he instead of executing a deed of relinquishment in her favour, executed a deed of sale. Therefore, in the eyes of law the transaction was not a transfer of ownership and, therefore the claim for pre-emption was not maintainable. The Deputy Collector, Laud Reforms, Naugachhia (respondent no. 4) however, overruled the plea of the petitioner and by his order dated 23rd September, 1977 annexure I allowed the application for pre-emption. On an appeal, the Additional Collector of Bhagalpur by his order dated 8th July, 1978 (annexure 2) upset the order of the Deputy Collector and rejected the claim for pre-emption. Respondent no. 5 then went to the Board of Revenue, and the learned Additional Member of the Board of Revenue by his order dated 23rd December, 1978 (annexure 3) again decided the matter in his favour. The petitioner has, accordingly, come to this court.

(2.) Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh appearing in support of this application has emphasised the same point which was agitated by the petitioner before the authority, namely, that the nature of the transaction was not really a sale.

(3.) Before proceeding to discuss the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I may notice some of the findings of facts recorded by the revenue authorities, namely, (i) the petitioner has been found to be in possession, although adverse over the lands in dispute right since 1965 and her possession has been recorded also in the survey records as Gasban Kabja (ii) although respondent no. 6 is the recorded raiyat, rents have all through been paid by the petitioner through her husband, and (iii) all the relevant documents, namely, the documents of recent title were also produced on behalf of the petitioner.