UDAI NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .W.J.C. No. 1728 of 2000 was filed by the original pre -emptor against common order of learned Additional Member Board of Revenue passed in Revision Case Nos. 167 and 168 of 1996 allowing the revision applications of the purchaser, setting aside common order of the Additional Collector, Kaimur (Bhabua) passed in Land Ceiling Appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of 1994 -95 in favour of the pre -emptor and restoring the common order of the D.C.L.R., Bhabua passed in Ceiling Case Nos. 4 and 5 of 1993. -94 dismissing the preemption application of the petitioner. Subsequently, in the light of the office objection with regard to the maintainability of one writ application against common order passed by the learned Additional Member Board of Revenue in two revision cases, the pre -emptor petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 3500 of 2006 against the same order passed by the learned Additional Member Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 168 of 1996. As the said C.W.J.C. No. 3500 of 2006 was in effect against the same order, both the cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE original pre -emptor petitioner having died during the pendency of the writ application, his heirs have been substituted as petitioner nos. 1 to 5 to C.W.J.C. No. 1728 of 2000.

(3.) IN both the cases, report was submitted by the Anchal Adhikari, finding the claim of the pre -emptor petitioner of being adjoining raiyat as true. It was also mentioned in the report that respondent no. 4 did not have his land adjoining to plot no. 1023. The pre -emption applications were finally heard by learned D.C.L.R., Mohania as the case was transferred to his court after creation of Mohania Sub -Division. Learned D.C.L.R., Mohania, however, dismissed the pre -emption applications by common order dated 9.12.1994 (Annexure -1) on the ground that in an earlier 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding between the vendor respondent no. 5 and the pre -emptor petitioner, the pre -emptor petitioner had accepted that he had no concern with the land and the same belonged to the vendor, namely, Ramanuj Tiwary.