SRIKISHUN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petitioners pray to quesh the different orders passed by the authorities under the Bihar Lend Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 5961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') under Sections 16 (3), 30 end 32 of the Act (as contained in Annexures-1, 2 and 3). By the order, as contained in Annexure-1 their prayer for reconveyance of the lands transferred in favour of respondent No. 5 has been rejected. The appellate authority, vide Annexure-2, dismissed their appeal without even stating as to what points were urged before it. Vide Annexure-3, the revisional authority affirmed tbe aforementioned orders, though after going at some length in regard to various issues and laws raised before it.

(2.) The lands in question originally belonged to respondent No. 6 which was transferred to respondent No. 5 through a sale deed registered on J2-9-1969, The petitioners filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Act on 21-9-1969 claiming themselves to be co-sharers and asserting that respodent No. 5 is neither a co-sharer nor any adjoining raiyat of the lands transferred. On a prayer made under Section 16 (3) (ii) of the Act, the petitioners were put in possession pending enquiry. On 10-12-1969 the transferee filed a rejoinder to the pre-emption application alleging, inter alia, that the application filed by the petitioner is not legally maintainable ; that the petitioners are neither co-sharers nor holders of adjoining land etc. It was also stated in the rejoinder that the transferee bad orally purchased the land measuring 1 katba 4 dburs towards east of the disputed land for Rs. 85/- on 11-5-1996. in revisional survey plot No. 203 and 1 katha 2 dhurs towards west in plot No. 1011 on 12-4-1962 for Rs. 90/- and that the vendor had executed receipts for getting consideration money from him. It has been asserted in the writ petition (Paragraph 9) that these transfers were collusive and such a stand has been taken only to make out a case and in order to support it some false and fabricated affidavits were also filed. No evidentialy value should have been given to these affidavits in the absence of the examination and cross-examination in court of the deponents. It has been further state that the petitioners relied upon the geneaology to support their claim of being co-sharers. The original authority vide Annexure-1 drew adverse inlerence against the petitioners from non filing of any counter affidavit. It further held that since the sale deed in question has been executed under the orders of the court it does not come within the purview of the Act. On these fine ings it held that there is no merit in the claim of reconveyance. The appeal of the petitioners' was dismissed summarily though the appellate authority stated that it heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the order. The revisional authority vide Annezure-3, held that the sale deed in question comes within the purview of the Act. It, however, negatived the contention made on behalf of the petitioners that the oral sales in favour of the transferee were legally void and could not be relied upon. It also held in regard to the different affidavits filed by the transferees that they show genuineness of the receipts granted by the vendors. In Paragraph 3 it also took note of the fact that it was not argued that the petitioner is not an adjoining raiyat. It further held that once the sale deed is valia, the question of delivery of possession was immaterial. In regard to the oral sales, it also observed that since the transferees have put chased orally five sales of adjoining lands, each of a value less than Rs. 100/- they were valid.

(3.) A supplementary affidavit as well as counter affidavit has been filed today which ate on the record.