LAWS(PAT)-1996-4-62

OSMAN ALIAS ABDUL JALIL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On April 04, 1996
OSMAN @ ABDUL JALIL (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY LRS Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer for substitution of the heirs of the sole petitioner, which is not opposed by the respondents, is allowed. Let the name of the petitioner be expunged from records and in his place, those of his heirs mentioned in the substitution petition be substituted.

(2.) These two petitions between the same parties relating to the same dispute arising out of analogous proceeding under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Ceiling Act') have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) The dispute relates to Plot No. 506 or village Bishunpura within Udwantnagar Anchal of Bhojpur district. The plot having total area of 8.31 acre stood in the name of respondent No. 5. Mst. Meniran Bibi. On 1.6.76 Maniram Bibi sold 0.15 acre land of the plot to respondent No. 4 Md. Azim. The petitioner filed application under Section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act claiming right of pre-emption, i.e. reconveyance of the vended land on the same terms and conditions. The application was registered as Case No. 11 of 1976-77 Later, the purchased the remaining portion of the plot, i.e. 0.16 acre, from respondent No. 5 on 28.6.76. It was the turn of respondent No. 4 to file application for pre-emption which was registered as Case No. 17 of 1976-77. It may be stated here that the petitioner is non else than the son of respondent No. 5. His case in substance was that his mother, i. e. respondent No.5, was merely benamidar; the real owner of the property being the father, late Tawarak Hussain. He thus pleaded that he was 'co-sharer' of the land with his mother. The claim of respondent No. 4 on the other hand was that by reason of the purchase of portion of the plot on 1.6.76, he had become adjoining raiyat of the land which was later purchased by the petitioner. He also denied that the petitioner was either a co- sharer or adjoining raiyat as on the date of the purchase by him (respondent No.4)