(1.) Both these applications under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution were heard together as they arise out of two cases which were made analogous in the courts below and were disposed of by common orders. Since a common question of law is involved in both the applications, this judgment will govern both the cases.
(2.) In both the writ applications the petitioners and the respondents are the same and the annexures also are identical. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the orders Annexures 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8. The case of the petitioners has been that they and respondents Nos. 1 to 5 are closely related and co-sharers and are holding land adjoining the lands transferred by respondents Nos. 1 to 5 in favour of respondents Nos. 6 to 8 and so they are entitled to claim the right of pre-emption under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). They, accordingly, filed an application under Section 16 (3) of the Act in the Court of the Sub-divisional Officer, Siwan, who is appointed as the Collector under the Act claiming the right of pre-emption in respect of the lands sold by respondents Nos. 1 to 5 in favour of respondents Nos. 6 to 8 by three separate sale deeds. The application also accompanied a treasury challan showing deposit of the entire consideration money under the three sale deeds plus 10 per cent of the total amount as required under the Act. That petition was registered as L.C. Case No. 36 of 1968-69. Respondents Nos. 6 to 8, namely, the three vendees, who had purchased the lands from respondents Nos. 1 to 5 contested the claim of the petitioners on, amongst others two main grounds, namely, (i) misjoinder of parties and (ii) deposit of the consideration money along with 10 per cent of the total consideration amount under the three sale deeds under one challan as, according to them, since they had purchased the lands under three separate sale deeds having different amount of consideration under each in respect of separate plots of land, the petitioners should have filed three sepa- rate applications claiming pre-emption in respect of the lands conveyed and the consideration money under each of the sale deeds with 10 per cent more should have been deposited under three separate challans and not under one challan as has been done by the petitioners. The petitioners had tried to justify the filing of only one application claiming the right of pre-emption in respect of the lands conveyed under the three sale deeds in favour of the aforesaid respondents on the basis that the respondents who had purchased lands under the three sale deeds were own brothers and were members of a joint Hindu family and that they had purchased the lands under three sale deeds to avoid income-tax and the operation of the Act.
(3.) These 'petitioners had already filed a similar case which was numbered as L. C. Case No. 32 of 1967-68 which was also pending before the same court between the same parties and on similar facts and circumstances and so that case was made analogous to L. C. Case No 36 of 1968-69 and were disposed of, as already stated earlier, by common orders which have been sought to be quashed.