RENU DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions arise from pre -emption proceedings with regard to different pieces of land from the same plot. These two cases were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) RENU Devi the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 11439 of 2002 and Kshema Devi the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 11459 of 2002 are the respective vendees. Deonath Jha who is the common respondent No. 5 in both the writ petitions is the pre -emptor and the deceased mother of respondent No. 6, again common in both the cases, was the vendor. The petitioners in the two cases lost before the D.C.L.R. who by his order, dated 24 -4 -2000 passed in Pre -emption Case No. 1/96 -97 (giving rise to C.W.J.C. No. 11439 of 2002) and Pre -emption Case No. 2/96 -97 (giving rise to C.W.J.C. No. 11459 of 2002) allowed the claim of pre -emption raised by respondent No. 5. The orders passed by the D.C.L.R. were set aside in appeal and the Additional Collector, Sheohar by his orders dated 21 -12 -2000 allowed the appeals preferred by the two petitioners. The pre -emptor then came in revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue by orders dated 31 -7 -2002 passed in Case No. 31 of 2001 (C.W.J.C.No. 11439 of 2002) and Case No. 30/2001 (C.W.J.C. No. 11459 of 2002) allowed the revisions, set aside the orders passed by the Additional Collector and upheld the Claim of pre -emption raised by respondent No. 5.

(3.) SECTION 16(3) of the Land Ceiling Act provides for making an application for preemption in the prescribed manner, within three months of the date of registration of the document of transfer but there are certain decisions holding that in an appropriate case it is open to the Dy. Collector. Land Reforms and the Collector under the Act to consider whether the delay in filing of the petition was fit to be condoned (See Krishna Kumar Choudhary v. Alliance Agro industries (1991) 1 Pat LJR (SC) 3. Therefore, without adverting to the question whether or not the Celling Authorities had the power to condone the delay of more than 10 years in filing the application, what is required to be examined here is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case it was at all a proper exercise of discretion to condone the extraordinary delay in filing the claim of preemption and whether the provision of law relied upon for condoning the delay has any application in the facts and circumstances of the case.