DEONARAIN ROY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated10-12-1979 (Annexure 2) passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector in Case No. 19 of 1979, allowing the application of respondent No. 5 under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, the appellate order dated 19-5-1980 (Annexure 3) passed by the Additional Collector, Hajipur in Ceiling Appeal No. 71 of 1979-80 and the order dated 27-6-1983 (Annexure 4) passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, in Case No. 166 of 1980.

(2.) To appreciate the case of the petitioner, it is necessary to narrate the undisputed facts of the petitioner's case in brief. The petitioner purchased a plot of land measuring 20 decimals bearing plot No. 465 of Khata No. 161 for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/- as per registered sale-deed executed on 6-3-1979 by respondent No. 6. (According to the petitioner, the land in question is a Bhit (homestead) land and he purchased it for the construction of 'dalan'. Respondent No. 5 filed an application before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter mentioned as 'the Act') for enforcement of his right of pre-emption contending that he was an raiyat of the adjacent plot of land. The application under Section 16(3) was filed beyond the period of limitation of 90 days as prescribed under Section 16(3) of the Act and was barred by ten days. Respondent No. 4, along with the application under Section 16(3) of the Act also filed an application praying for condonation of delay. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector admitted the application keeping the question of limitation open, to be considered at the time of hearing of the application on merit. The petitioner, after receipt of notice from the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, filed objection. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, after hearing the petitioner and Respondent No. 5, by the impugned order dated 10-12-1979, condoned the delay in filing the application and allowed the application of Respondent No. 5. The petitioner impugned the said order dated 10-12-1979 in an appeal registered as Ceiling Appeal No. 71 of 1979-80, before the Collector, Hajipur. The Additional Collector, Hajipur, after hearing the parties by order dated 19-5-1980, dismissed the said appeal. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred a revision application before the Board of Revenue, which was registered as Case No. 166 of 1980. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, by the impugned order dated 27-6-1983, dismissed the said revision application. The petitioner has, thereafter, approached this court in this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Bhupendra Narain Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. P. Verma, learned Standing Counsel (Ceiling) for the State, learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 appeared in course of hearing on 22-12-1994, and prayed for time for a period of three weeks to file affidavit-in-opposition. By order dated 22-12-1994, the prayer was allowed. But neither the affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 5, nor the counsel on his behalf has appeared today.