BECHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioners, counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 and the counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) PETITIONERS are purchasers and respondents 4 and 5 are pre -emptors. Petitioners are aggrieved by institution of proceeding of Misc. Case No. 18 of 1999 -2000 whereby the District Magistrate, Khagaria, has allowed the application filed by respondents 4 and 5 with regard to the execution of the sale deeds with respect to the vended lands considering the fact that pre -emption application was allowed by the appellate authority in Misc. Case No. 14 of 1981 -1982. Petitioners have further challenged the order passed in Misc. Case No. 14 of 1981 -1982 on the ground that the District Magistrate, Khagaria, had allowed the miscellaneous case treating the same as an appeal filed by respondents 4 and 5 though miscellaneous case was preferred by the respondents against the order passed during the pendency of the pre -emption application. The initiation of the proceeding in Miscellaneous Case No. 18 of 1999 - 2000 is challenged by the petitioners on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Petitioners case is that the Pre -emption Case No. 24 of 1980. -1981 was filed by respondents 4 and 5 when the father of the petitioners, Jhaksu Singh, had purchased the land of Mauja Mali Harinagar, tauzi no. 558, thana no. 133, khata no. 99 khesras nos. 767, 781, 782, khata no. 533 khesras nos. 1163 , 1266, 1267, 1302, measuring 9 kathas and 12 dhurs through registered sale deed, dated 21 st December, 1980, the sale deed was registered on 9th January, 1980. During the pendency of the preemption application respondents 4 and 5 filed an application before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Khagaria for holding enquiry which was rejected by order, dated 1.12.1981. Against this order Misc. Case No. 14 of 1981 -1982 was filed by respondents 4 and 5. before the Collector, Khagaria, that matter remained pending. In the meantime, the pre -emption case itself was rejected by order, dated 28th November, 1981. Petitioners case is that no appeal was preferred by the respondents against the order passed in preemption case, but the Collector erroneously treated the Misc. Case No. 14 of 1980 -1981 as an appeal and by a common order, dated 19th/24th May, 1982, he decided the appeal as well as the miscellaneous case. He allowed the miscellaneous case against which no revision was preferred by the petitioner. The reason has been given that a massive flood came in the area and the entire record of the case became traceless. Respondents 4 and 5 in whose favour the Misc. Case No. 14 of 1981 -1982 decided. They also did not file any application for execution of sale deed in their favour under Section 16(3)(iii) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as, the Act). After 17 -18 years the respondents 4 and 5 have filed an application before the Collector, Khagaria. It has been registered as Misc. Case No. 18. of 1999 -2000 for a direction to the petitioners to execute sale deed in their favour as their pre -emption application has been allowed by the appellate authority. The petitioners have filed this application against initiation of this proceeding stating that the proceeding is barred by limitation. Under Section 16(3)(iii) of the Act it has been provided that the "if the application is allowed, the Collector shall by an order direct the transferee to convey the land in favour of the applicant by executing and registering a document or transfer within a period to be specified in the order and, if he neglects or refuses to comply with the direction, the procedure prescribed in order 21, rule 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, shall be, so far as may be followed".

(3.) IN reply to the submissions made by the petitioners, counsel for respondents 4 and 5 stated that the arguments advanced by the petitioners counsel that the proceeding is barred by limitation is not sustainable and the Articles 134 and 136 of the Limitation Act has no application in the present case. He has placed his reliance on a decision reported in A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1279, Sakuru V/s. Tanaji, wherein it has been held that