CHANDESHWAR SINGH Vs. DAHU MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these cases have been heard together as the points of law involved in them are identical. The question of law that has been referred to the Full Bench is the correctness of a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Janam Gareri v. Narbadeshwar Singh (AIR 1973 Pat 396), wherein it was held that there could be no waiver with regard to the question of jurisdiction.

(2.) I shall first take up this case. This ease was placed before a Division Bench, of which I was a Member, on 23-7-1976 when a doubt was expressed regarding the correctness of the Bench decision in Ram Janam Gareri's case (AIR 1973 Pat 396) (supra) and the matter was ultimately referred to the Full Bench. Similar doubt was expressed in the next ease on 4-9-1979 and thus both the cases were placed before us. Three other, cases were also listed before this Bench fecit ultimately they were sent back to Division Bench at the request of learned counsel for both the parties appearing in those cases.

(3.) Both the cases are directed against the orders passed by the authorities under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') in a matter under Section 16 (3) of the Act, On 11-5-1966 the petitioners purchased 22 decimals of land from Sadhu Saran Singh arid others appertaining to plot Nos. 774 and, 775 under Khata No. 34 of Tauzi No. 1352 in village Basiwan, which in course of the consolidation proceedings was given Chak Number 581, for Rs. 2,000/-. It may be mentioned that in the sale deed in question the name of respondent No. 1 was mentioned in the northern boundary. On 30-7-1976 respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 16 (3) of the Act before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Biharshariff for an order for transfer of the land to him on the ground that be was an adjacent raiyat, of the said chak towards the north by virtue of his Chak No. 564, Two rejoinders (show cause) were filed by the petitioners; one on 8-10-1966 in which they pleaded that the nature of the land was not agricultural and, therefore, the application for pre-emption was not maintainable. In the second show cause petition dated 29-8-1968 they raised two further pleas, namely, (1) that the Chaks in question were intervened by a lane and, therefore, the plea of adjacency was irrelevant and meaningless for the purpose of the Act and, (2) in the sale deed in question a wrong mention of the name of respondent No. 1 was wrongly shown in the boundary.