RAJU KUMAR PRASAD & ANOTHER, PREM SHANKER PRASAD AND AJOY KUMAR PRASAD & ANOTHER Vs. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of three writ applications which have been referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge and have been heard together, the question of law arising for consideration is the effect of a transfer by the purchaser of the land in question on the date of the filing of the application under Sec. 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. The petitioners in all the three cases are the purchasers and are related to each other so much so that petitioner No. 2 of the first case is the petitioner of the second case and brother of petitioner No. 2 of the third case. These petitioners purchased certain lands situate in village Harnathpur in the district of East Champaran, from respondent Nos. 5 and 6 under three separate sale deeds for Rs. 9,000/ - each which was registered on 29.9.1977, and according to their case the lands conveyed to the petitioners under the three sale deeds formed one compact block. On 21.11.1977 respondent No. 4 filed applications for pre -emption in the court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sikrahna at Motihari for transfer of the lands in question to him claiming himself to be an adjacent raiyat thereof, and on the same day, i.e., 21.11.77, the petitioners in their turn, had also executed separate sale deeds in favour of different persons for the lands/part (sic), which were, however, registered on 17.12.1977.

(2.) It was conceded at the Bar that the Deputy Collector did not pass any separate order on the petition of the subsequent transferees and, although during the course of hearing Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh, appearing for the petitioners, on the instructions of the junior, stated before us that in his order (Annexure 2) also the Deputy Collector did not pass any order in this regard, I/however, find from the scrutiny of the order of the Deputy Collector that he has made an observation that the transfer of the lands by the petitioners on 21.11.77 did not appear to be farzi.

(3.) The pre -emptor also failed before the Collector of Motihari in his appeal, who by his order dated 30.5.79/13.6.79 (Annexure 3), relying upon a Bench decision of this Court in Chandradip Singh and another v/s. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar ( : A.I.R. 1978 Patna 148), dismissed the appeals mainly on the ground that the petitioners having transferred the land to a third party on the date the application for pre -emption was made, no order could be passed against them. The pre -emptor then filed revision before the Board of Revenue. The learned Additional Member of the Board allowed his application on committing a serious error of law, contrary to the view of this Court in a large number of decisions, that despite the sale deeds in favour of the subsequent transferees which were registered after the date of the pre -emption applications, the petitioners had still subsisting title in the lands and therefore, there was no impediment in the way of the pre -emptor for the order of pre -emption in his favour.