BADAR DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent no. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the private respondent No. 4 (wrongly typed as 5 namely, Smt.Ahilya Devi).

(2.) The origin of the present dispute is an application filed by Ahilya Devi before the court of D.C.L.R. claiming a right of preemption in her favour under section 16(3) of the Land Ceiling Act. The application of Ahilya Devi and the assertion that she was the adjoining raiyat was found to be in order and a direction thereafter came to be issued to register the land in her favour within the time specified. This order is Annexure-2 to the writ application. An appeal thereafter was filed by the present petitioners challenging that order. The appellate forum after verifying the facts and assertions also came to a concluded opinion that Ahilya Devi was raiyat in her own right and piece and parcel of land based on which she is claiming a right stood in her name by way of purchase made by her. The appeal therefore came to be dismissed in favour of Ajilya Devi. The appellate order dated 16.10.1985 is Annexure-3. The petitioners then decided to invoke the revisional power and Revision Case No. 504 of 1985 was filed before the Board of Revenue. While exercising power the Additional Member, Board of Revenue held against the present petitioners and reaffirmed the finding in favour of the private respondent by concurring in this regard. The Court has gone through the revisional order contained in Annexure-4 and records that even though Additional Member, Board of Revenue was exercising revisional power, in the larger interest of justice he has gone into all the ambit of the case and counter case and has also discussed the facts and the question raised by both the parties in detail but with preponderance of evidence weighed against the present petitioners it has rightly been concluded in favour of the private respondent. There are concurrent findings against the petitioners by all the forums.

(3.) The petitioners now take their fourth chance by filing this writ application. The first question which is sought to be raised is that it is not in dispute that Ahilya Devi was the daughter-in-law of one Saryug Hazra and therefore she could not claim right of pre-emption as a member of the joint family because under the HUF the right existed in favour of Saryug Hazra and not in daughter-in-iaw. The second contention is that the three petitioners had acquired a right by way of sale deed executed in their favour and they turned out to be adjoining raiyat and they had a better claim over this issue.