RABINDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application arises from a pre-emption proceeding in terms of Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. The material facts of this case are brief and can be stated thus. The disputed piece of land, measuring 7 dhurs and 15 dhurkis in area of plot No. 1119 apperg taining to khata No. 23 and situated at village Bareja under Kopa police station in the district of Saran was purchased by respondent No. 6 for a consideration of Rs. 3,000.00 from respondent No. 7. The purchase was made under a sale deed executed on 9/2/1990; the registration of the sale deed was completed on 8/10/ 1991. On 19/11/1991, respondent No. 5 filed an application for pre-emption claiming to be an adjacent raiyat of the disputed land. Prior to the filing of the pre-emption application, respondent No. 6 on 7/11/1990 executed a sale deed transferring the disputed land in the petitioner's favour. The registration of the 2nd sale deed in the petitioner's favour was completed on 2/5/1992. The second transfree is the petitioner before this Court, the second sale deed was executed prior to the filing of the preemption application but its registration was completed after the institution of the proceedings. It is also of importance to note that once the fact of the subsequent transfer came to light, the pre- emptor got the petitioner, the 2nd transferee, impleaded as an opposite party in the pre-emption proceeding which was decided by the Court of the 1st instance, against the pre-emptor, in presence of the petitioner

(2.) The Incharge D.C.L.R. Sadar, Chapra, by his order dated 7-9-1992 (Annexure 2) passed in L.C. Case No. 25/1991 rejected the claim of pre-emption and found that the pre-emption application, orginally made against respondent No. 6 with a deposit made as per the consideration amount shown in the sale deed dated 9-2-1990 was not maintainable. According to him, the pre-emptor should have filed a pre- emptor application only against the 2nd transferee making a deposit on the basis of the consideration amount shown in the subsequent sale deed dated 7-11- 1990 in the petitioner's favour. An appeal filed by respondent No. 5 against this order was allowed by order dated 14-6-1993 (Annexure 3) passed by the Addl. Collector, Saran in L.C. Case No.25/1992. The petitioner sought to challenge the appellate order by filing a revision before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed by order dated 24/4/1995 (Annexure 4) passed by the Addl. Member, Board of Revenue in Case No. 265/1993. The petitioner has now come to this Court challenging the appellate and the revisional orders.

(3.) Before proceeding to examine the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, it is to be noted that both the appellate and the revisional authorities found that respondent No. 5, the pre- emptor, was a boundry raiyat of the disputed piece of land. Indeed, there does not appear to be any escape from this finding as the name of the pre-emptor is shown in the northern boundry of the vended land in the sale deed dated 9/2/ 1990. It is also undeniable that neither the first purchaser, respondents No. 6 nor the subsequent purchaser, the petitioner have any land in the boundry of the disputed land. The 2nd significant finding recorded by the revenue authorities is that the subsequent sale in favour of the petitioner was sham and Farzi and the original purchaser, respondent No. 6, had no intention to part with the land. For this finding, which was recorded in presence of the petitioner, the Board of Revenue has given some very good and cogent reasons.