MOHAN JEE PATHAK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and private respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 16.9.2005 passed in Pre-litigation Case No. 121 of 2005 as also the order dated 4.3.2008 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Buxar in Misc. Case No. 3 of 2006.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the lands under dispute bearing Khata Nos. 108 and 109, plot Nos. 1981 and 1980 having total area 35 3/4 decimals in Village-Ahirauli, P.S.-Buxar (Industries), District-Buxar were sold by respondent No. 2 through registered sale deed dated 25.7.2005 for Rs. 77,000/- to respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 thereafter got the land mutated in his name by order dated 8.8.2005 of the Circle Officer. The petitioner being the boundary raiyat, filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 on 26.8.2005 claiming pre-emption of the land before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Buxar which was Registered as Ceiling Case No. 7/2005-06. The DCLR after issuing notice to the respondent No. 3 and hearing the parties, allowed the case by order dated 22.9.2005 and the respondent No. 3 was directed to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner with respect to the disputed lands.

(3.) In the meantime, the respondent No. 2 filed a Pre-litigation Case No. 121/2005 before the so-called Permanent Lok Adalat, Buxar on 6.9.2005 against the respondent No. 3 for declaration that the sale deed dated 25.7.2005 executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 3 is without consideration and, accordingly, the respondent No. 3 has no right and title over the land in dispute. The petitioner was not made party in the said Pre-litigation case nor the pendency of Ceiling Case No. 7/2005-06 was mentioned therein, allegedly in collusive manner in order to defeat the pre-emption case with a mala fide intention. The respondent No. 3 appeared in the matter even without the notice dated 13.9.2005 being received by him, on 16.9.2005 alongwith an application of compromise and on the same date the compromise petition was moved and accepted by the Lok Adalat and the case was allowed in terms of the compromise decree. The petitioner filed an application in Pre-litigation Case No. 121/2005 stating the concealment of the ceiling case and fraud played upon the Lok Adalat and requested to implead him as party. The application was allowed on 1.3.2006. When the respondents raised objection to the maintainability of the application, the Lok Adalat directed the petitioner to withdraw the application and file a fresh Misc. Case. Accordingly, the application was withdrawn on 10.11.2006 and Misc. Case No. 3/2006 for setting aside the compromise order passed in Pre-litigation Case No. 121/2005 was filed.