HIRALAL CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition arises from a proceeding under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Celling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The purchaser of the disputed land is the petitioner. He succeeded before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, who rejected the claim of pre-emption put forward on behalf of respondent No. 5 Chitari Jamadar, but lost before the appellate and the revisional authorities, namely, the Collector and the Additional Member, Board of Revenue. The aforesaid orders are contained, respectively, in Annexures 2, 3 and 4 to the writ petition.

(2.) The dispute relates to 0.07 acre land of plot No. 94 situate at village Jalalgarh in the district of Purnea. On 23-9-86 the petitioner purchased the said land from respondent Nos. 6 and 7 Molai Chauhan and Munri Devi, under a registered sale deed. Respondent No. 5 Chitari Jamadar (hereinafter referred to as pre-emptor) filed application under Section 16(3) of the Act being Case No. 18 of 1987-88, seeking reconveyance of the land on the same terms and conditions as provided in the section. On 6-4-90 the DCLR, Sadar Purnea exercising powers of the Collector under the Act dismissed the application as mentioned above. He held that the petitioner was a co-sharer and that local inspection had revealed that he had purchased the land for constructing house. The pre-emptor preferred appeal before the Collector vide Ceiling Appeal No. 9/ 90. By order dated 16-10-90 the Collector allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the DCLR. It was the turn of petitioner to challenge the order by way of revision before the Board of Revenue where it was registered as Revision No. 618 of 1990. On 18-5-92 the Additional Member, Board of Revenue dismissed the revision and thus affirmed the order of the Collector. The petitioner has come to this Court for quashing the said orders of the Collector and the Additional Member, Board of Revenue.

(3.) Two questions, appear td have arisen for consideration before the authorities below, namely, whether the disputed land is land' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act and secondly, whether the petitioner is co-sharer. It may be mentioned here that the disputed land belonged to one Puran Nonia who had two sons namely, Molai Chouhan and Anirudh Chouhan, and a daughter Budhia Devi. The son of Budhia Devi is the purchaser i.e. petitioner in this case. The vendors are Molai Chouhan and Munri Devi widow of Anirudh Choudhan, since dead. The pre-emptor, it may also be stated, is son of sister of Puran Nohia.