KULDEEP MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha for the petitioner, learned JC to Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh, SC (Ceiling) for respondent nos. 1 to 3, and Chitra Gupt Prasad for respondent no. 4 (Deo Narain Mahto @Ganauri Mahto). This writ petition is directed against the order dt. 25.8.03 (Annexure -4), passed by the learned Collector of the district of Gaya in Land Ceiling Case No. 21/99 -2000, whereby he has rejected the present petitioners application under Section 47 of the Bihar Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act.

(2.) THIS relates to the proceeding under Section 16(3) of the Act, The petitioner had purchased the lands in question by a registered deed of absolute sale from respondent nos. 5 and 6. Thereafter respondent no. 4 filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Act claiming pre -emption with respect to the land in question which was allowed by order dt. 24.11.98 (Annexure 1), passed by the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Gaya, in Case No. 14/98 -99. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner (the vendee) preferred the statutory appeal which was disposed of by order 3.9.2001 (Annexure -3) by learned Collector of the district of Gaya in Case No. 21/99 - 2000. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 47 of the Act before the learned Collector, stating therein that it would appear from the discussion in the appellate order dt. 3.9.2001 that the learned appellate authority after a discussion of the matter before him reached the conclusion that the pre -emption application was not maintainable but, however, by a mistake attributable by oversight to typographical error, the order in the end stated "rejected", whereas it was intended to be allowed. He, therefore, prays for necessary correction of the error in the order apparent on its face. The application under Section 47 has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the said appellate order was passed by his predecessor Collector of the district and, therefore, he would not like to interfere with the order. Hence this writ petition at the instance of the vendee.

(3.) THE writ petition is accordingly disposed of.