ABDUL GAFOOR Vs. ADDITIONAL MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 4 Khusilal Mahto (since dead) and respondent No. 5 Jagdish Mahto purchased Plots Nos. 436 and 425 in full and Plots Nos. 259 and 424 in part from Sheikh Sultan Ahmad and Sheikh Anwar Ahmad by a registered sale deed dated 11th November, 1966. The petitioner filed an application under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Begu-sarai, on the ground that he held land adjacent to the land sold in favour of the aforesaid two respondents. The application was contested by the purchasers but the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Begusarai, by his order dated 18th January, 1968, allowed the prayer for pre-emption. The matter then went in appeal. The appellate Court set aside the order and remanded the case back to the Deputy collector, Land Reforms, for fresh decision in accordance with law. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, again by his order dated 27th December, 1971, upheld the claim of pre-emption made by the petitioner. The appeal failed before the Collector. Thereafter the vendees went in revision before the Member, Board of Revenue. The learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, by his order dated 21st November 1974 (annexure '4') allowed the application and held that the claim for pre-emption could not be allowed on two counts; namely, (i) the application under Section 16 (3) had to be in form LC 13 but the petitioner did not furnish informations required under that form, and (ii) the pre-emptor, though held land adjacent to plots Nos. 425, 289 and 424 but he did not hold any land adjacent to plot No. 436. The revision application, therefore, was allowed and the claim of the petitioner under Section 16 (3) of the Act was disallowed. Thereafter this application has been filed in this Court with a prayer to quash the order passed by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, dt/- 21st Nov. 1974, as contained in An-nexure '4'.

(2.) Undisputedly, plots No. 436 and 425 which have been sold in full and plots Nos. 289 and 424 which have been sold in part are contiguous and they form one block. The petitioner is raiyat of adjacent plots, namely, plots Nos. 435 and 426 which are contiguous to plots Ncs. 426, 289 and 424. Therefore notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner does not hold any land adjacent to plot No. 436, the application for pre-emption cannot be dismissed on that ground because the land has been sold in one block and the petitioner holds land adjacent to the block. This view is supported by the decision in Sheikh Mohammad Umar v. Baidyanath Giri (1969 BLJR 542).

(3.) Mr. Tara Kant Jha next urged that the application under Section 16 (3) could not be thrown merely on the ground that the informations required by Form LC 13 were not fully furnished. The infirmity is with regard to Schedule I of the form. Schedule I is as follows:--