URMILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. N.K. Prasad, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Section Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent No.5.

(2.) IT appears that at the initial stage, this writ petition was dismissed in limine on 24.7.1989 by a Division Bench of this Court. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner moved before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 11115 of 1989. The Apex Court remanded the matter in terms of the order dated 4.1.1996 directing this Court to dispose of the writ petition after deciding the question involved therein. Thereafter this writ petition was admitted for hearing on 13.8.1996 and has come before me for final hearing today.

(3.) MR . N.K. Prasad, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner, assailed the impugned orders passed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel drawn my attention to Annexure 1, copy of the sale deed in question, and submitted that from the sale deed it will appear that the nature of the land was shown as 'Purani Parti having Pasauri Haque' and there is a Khapara Posh house in a portion of the land which is situated within Chakradharpur Municipality. Learned Counsel then submitted that from the sale deed it will not appear that either the vendor ever used the land as agricultural land or it has been used for non agricultural purposes on the date of transfer in favour of the petitioner. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the original authority came to a right conclusion that the land being the non agricultural land the provision of Section 16(3) of the Act is not applicable. Learned Counsel further submitted that the appellate authority and the revisional authority have based their findings either on assumption or on consideration or irrelevant facts or those facts which are not on record.