RAM PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset it may be mentioned that petitioner No. 2 died during the pendency of this writ application in this Court. His heirs have been substituted as petitioners 2 (a) to 2 (d). Hereinafter in this judgment, by the petitioners would be meant the original petitioners.

(2.) Mosammat Jagta Kuer, respondent No. 6, executed two sale deeds in favour of Ram Chhapit Yadav respondent No. 5, on 27-12-63. By one sale deed, a copy of which is Annexure 6, she transferred 0.44 acre of land comprised in plot No. 175 and 0.20 acre of land comprised in plot No. 167 for a sum of Rs. 1,000. By another sale deed, a copy of which is Annexure 7, she transferred lands measuring 1.57 acres comprised in plot No. 182 for Rs. 2,000. The petitioners claiming to be adjoining raiyats of all the three plots transferred, which seemed to be in three different blocks, filed an application on 23-3-64 under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act. Respondent No. 5 filed his objection and resisted the claim of pre-emption set up by the petitioners. One of the grounds on which the claim was resisted was that the purchaser himself was an adjoining raiyat of the lands transferred. Evidence was adduced before the Subdivisional Officer, Arrah, Sadar, respondent No. 2, by the parties. The learned Subdivisional Officer by his order dated 20-3-68 (Annexure 1) held that the petitioners were the adjoining raiyats of the lands transferred. At one place by a perfunctory discussion he seems to have rejected the claim of res-pondent No. 5 of his being an adjoining raiyat of the lands transferred. He went up in appeal. The appeal was allowed by the Collector by his order dated 17-11-69 (Annexure 2). A remand order was made on two grounds-- (i) that the contention of respondent No. 5 that one application could not be filed to claim preemption in respect of the lands transferred by two sale deeds had force and the Subdivisional Officer had not decided this point; and (ii) that the Subdivisional Officer also had not decided whether respondent No. 5 was an adjoining raiyat of the lands transferred. The petitioners went up in revision before the Board of Revenue. The learned Additional Member has dismissed it by his order dated 21-2- 70 (Annexure 3). Relying upon a Bench decision of this Court in Ramchabila Singh v. Ramsagar Singh, (1968 Pat LJR 279) the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, has held that one application in respect of two sale deeds executed by respondent No. 6 in favour of respondent No. 5 was not maintainable. The effect of that revision order would be that when the case goes on remand to the learned Subdivisional Officer he would be obliged to give effect to this opinion of the Board and dismiss the petitioners' application filed under Section 16 (3) of the Act. They have obtained a rule from this Court to quash the order of the Collector (Annexure 2) and that of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue (Annexure 3), against the respondents to show cause. The rule has been opposed by respondent No. 5.

(3.) Section 16 (3) of the Act provides that when any transfer of land is made, then an adjoining raiyat may make an application for pre-emption. The application is to be made in accordance with Rule 19 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules, 1963, hereinafter called the Rules. Neither the section nor the rule aforesaid bars the filing of one application in respect of two sale deeds, Unless and until on general principles of law some difficulty is created in the filing and entertainment of one application. I see no reason to hold that one application filed in respect of two sale deeds is not maintainable. Applying the principle engrafted in the General Clauses Act that singular includes plural it is legitimate to take the view that when transfers of land are made an application, meaning thereby one application, can be made before the Collector. Similarly the requirement of the filing of a copy of the registered deed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 would mean that copies of the registered deeds have got to be annexed. It is to be pointed out that there is neither any section in the Act nor any rule in the Rules attracting the application of the provision of law contained in Order II of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 33 which provides for the authorities under the Act to have powers of the civil court does not attract the application of Order II of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 49 of the Rules prescribes that the procedure to be followed by the appellate authority in disposing of appeals under the Act shall, so far as may be practicable, be the same as provided for civil appeals under Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On application of the principles of law engrafted in Rule 3 of Order II, C. P, C. it would be noticed that under certain circumstances it should be permissible to have one application in respect of two or more sale deeds. If two sale deeds are executed by the same person in favour of different persons, then the pre-emptor may not, rather should not be permitted to file one application against the different sets of purchasers. There, on general principles, one purchaser should not be made a party in the case of the other purchaser and it should be insisted that two applications should be filed. It may well also be that if sale deeds are executed on different dates by same vendor in favour of the same vendee, then also filing of different applications may be advisable or necessary. But the facts of the present case are too glaring to attract the principle of law decided by the learned Additional Member. Board of Revenue, that one application was not maintainable. Two sale deeds were executed on the same day by respondent 6 in favour of respondent 5. If the pre-emptors claim to be the adjoining raiyats of all the plots transferred, they could file one application and there was no infirmity, defect or illegality in it.