ANANDI BHAGAT Vs. ADDITIONAL MEMBER BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question which has emerged in this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is whether there should be pre -emption or no pre -emption, challenging the order of the appellate Court recorded in Ceiling Appeal No. 21 of 1983 -84/ 67 of 1985 -86, whereby, the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (DCLR), dated 29.8.1983, in Case No. 40 of 1982, came to be reversed, while allowing the appeal and the decision of the appellate Court came to be confirmed by the revisional authority by order dated 25th May, 1987,passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in case No. 67 of 1986.

(2.) THE present petitioner is the original applicant who claimed the benefit of right of pre -emption under Sec. 16(3)(i) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (" The Act of 1961"), by filing an application before the DCLR (East), Muzffarpur, (respondent No. 3), on 6.9.1982, pursuant to the execution of the sale deed by the owner of the land, respondent No. 5. The sale deed was executed on 8.6.1982 and was registered under the Indian Registration Act on 22.9.1982, in favour of respondent No. 4.

(3.) IT is true that in view of the dates mentioned above, the application claiming pre -emption by the petitioner of adjoining raiyat under Sec. 16(3) of the Act of 1961, came to be made on 6.9.1982, whereas, the registration had taken place under Sec. 61 of the Indian Registration Act on 22.9.1982. However, it is, equally, true that the document of sale came to be executed by respondent No. 5 in favour of respondent No. 4 in respect of the disputed land much prior to the date of the application for pre -emption as the sale deed was executed evidencing the transfer of the disputed land along with possession with consideration. This aspect appears to have been misappreciated by the appellate or the revisional authorities, while reversing the order of the DCLR, which authority allowed the right of pre -emption claimed under Sec. 16(3) of the Act of 1961.