ABDUL JALIL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Wasi Akhtar for the petitioner, Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned standing counsel (Ceiling) for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and Mr. Syed Firoz Raza for respondent Nos. 5 to 7. None appears on behalf of respondent No. 8 inspite of valid service of notice. These two writ petitions arise out of a common order dated 23.3.2000, passed by learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Patna, in case No. 61/98/62/98, Md. Jilani v. Abdul Jalil, whereby the revision applications of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 herein under Section 32 of the Bihar [Consolidation of Holdings] Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been allowed, and the orders of the learned first authority and the appellate authority have been set aside. It arises out of two applications under Section 16(3) of the Act.

(2.) The petitioner is the pre-emptor, respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are the purchasers, and respondent No. 8 is the vendor. Respondent No. 8 executed two documents of absolute sale on 8.11.1990, in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 7, conveying right, title and interest of different portions of plot No. 306, which are admittedly side by side. The same were registered on 30.3.1993. The petitioner filed two separate pre-emption applications claiming reconveyance of the lands in question by virtue of being an adjoining raiyat. The two applications were allowed by a common order dated 20.3.1997 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned LRDC, East Muzaffarpur, whereby it was held that respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are neither co-sharers nor adjoining raiyats with respect to the vended plot, and the petitioner is adjoining raiyat with respect to both the plots. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 preferred appeal which was dismissed by order dated 30.12.1997 (Annexure-2), and the findings of fact recorded by the learned first authority were affirmed. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 preferred revision applications which have been allowed by the impugned order. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1987 PLJR 455, Ram Roop Yadav v. State of Bihar, he has held that respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are adjoining raiyat with respect to the vended plots. Hence this writ petition are the instance of the pre-emptor.

(3.) It may be stated for the sake of clarity that land ceiling case No. 12/93 gave rise to ceiling appeal No. 112/96-97 which, in its turn, gave rise to revision case No. 61/98. ultimately giving rise to CWJC No. 4594 of 2000. Similarly, land ceiling case No. 13/93 gave rise to land ceiling appeal No. 113/96-97 which, in its turn gave rise to revision case No. 62/98, which has ultimately giving rise to CWJC No. 4599 of 2000, All the three authorities below have disposed of the matters before them by common orders. The two writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.