SUDAMA DEVI Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment, as the facts are similar and the points involved in them are identical. C.W.J.C. 1949 of 1970

(2.) The facts of this case are that respondents 8 and 9 executed a sale deed on 16-12-65 for a sum of Rs. 625/- in favour of the petitioners conveying to them three plots, details of which are mentioned in paragraph 1 of the writ application. The registration of this document was complete under Section 61 of the Registration Act on 2-3-66. Dharkhan Singh, ancestor of respondents 1 to 6, and Sahdeo Singh, respondent 7, filed an application on 5-3-66 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 called the Act, claiming to be either co-sharers of some of the plots transferred or adjoining raiyats of some of the plots. The petitioners filed a rejoinder to the application filed by Dharkhan and Sahdeo. In their rejoinder they did not take their full defence in regard to all the facts but reserved their right to take a fuller defence at a later stage. The main plank of defence was that they had transferred all the lands purchased by them by the sale deed dated 16-12-65 to one Shyam Narain Singh by a deed executed on 2-3-66. It may be mentioned here that the registration of this sale deed dated 2-3-66 was complete on 23-5-66. It would thus be seen that the sale deed in favour of Shyam Narain Singh was executed before the filing of the application under Section 16 (3) of the Act but was registered later. The petitioners in their rejoinder also stated that the application filed by Dharkhan and Sahdeo under Section 16 (3) of the Act was not in accordance with law as engrafted in the Act and the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules, 1963, hereinafter called the Rules, framed under the Act.

(3.) Dharkhan and Sahdeo, the two pre-emptors, in view of the stand taken in the rejoinder tiled by the petitioners that they had transferred the land to Shyam Narain Singh, filed an application on 31-7-67 in the court of the Sub-divisional Officer who was in seisin of the case for adding Shyam Narain Singh as a party to the application under Section 16 (3). So far at I have been able to gather from the materials placed before us, it appears that Shyam Narain Singh was not formally added as a party to Case No. 26 of 1966 but notice was issued to him. He appeared and filed a show cause petition. In the application filed by the pre-emptors on 31-7-67 it was stated that the sale deed executed by the petitioners in favour of Shyam Narain Singh was a farzi transaction meaning thereby that, in fact, there was no sale at all and the purported sale was a sham transaction.