RAM SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL MEMBER BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. A prayer has been made for quashing the orders contained in Annexures 2 and 3 passed by the Additional Collector on 11.11.1978 in Case No. 14/75 -76 and by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue on 9.5.1980 in Case No. 444 of 1978 respectively.

(2.) Respondent No. 5 Smt. Ram Lakshmibati Kumari (since dead) sold 2 bighas 10 kathas 17 dhurs of land situate in village Saidpur Dallo alias Pakra appertaining to khata No. 408, plot No. 720, 952 and 956 to respondent No. 4 Dinesh Prasad Chaudhary. The sale deed was executed on 9 -5 -1975 and was registered on 8.5.1975. On 6 -8 -1975 the petitioners filed an application under Sec. 16 (3) of the Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition ol Surplus Land) Act, (hereafter referred to as the Act) claiming pre -emption, They claimed that they were in the boundary of the vended land. Several objections seem to have been taken by the purchaser against the petitioners' claim for pre -emption. The learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector ultimately allowed the claim of pre -emption in favour of petitioners 1, 2 and 3 and rejected the claim of petitioner No. 4 Rajit Prasad Singh. According to him petitioner No. 4 Ranjit Prasad Singh was the adjoining Raiyat of plot Nos. 720 956 and not an adjoining Raiyat in respect of plot No. 952. According to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector in a case where a joint petition had been filed the pre -emption could be allowed in respect of some even though in respect of other it was found that he was not on the boundary of each of the plots. Respondent No. 4 Dinesh Prasad Chaudhary filed an appeal and the Additional Collector by his order contained in Annexure 2 set aside the order passed by the Land Reforms, Deputy Collector. According to him unless it was found that all the petitioners were individually, separately or jointly holding lands in contiguity of the vended lands, the claim of pre -emption could not be allowed. It may be mentioned here that petitioner No. 4 Ranjit Prasad Singh had not filed any appeal against the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector nor had preferred any cross -objection before the appellate court. The finding of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector so far Ranjit Prasad Singh is concerned, therefore, became final.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the learned Additional Collector has failed to give any finding with respect to jointness of the petitioners and if the petitioners are found to be joint as claimed by them their claim could not be defeated. Learned Counsel is not correct. The learned Additional Collector has found that the petitioners have not been able to prove jointness. It is not possible for this Court to go against that finding.