ARJUN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) BOTH the writ applications involve common fact and common question of law and are being disposed of by the same order. The petitioners -purchasers have assailed the order dated 9.9.2004 passed by the Addl. Member, Board of Revenue in Revision Case Nos. 19/04/20/04 whereby and whereunder the order passed by the DCLR and the Addl. Collector, Aurangabad in their favour have been set aside and in that process application for pre -emption has been allowed.

(3.) THE facts are not in dispute. On the basis of a sale deed as contained in Annexure -2 to both the writ application, on 29.8.2000 after its registration, the respondent no. 5 had filed two applications claiming pre -emption both on account of being co -sharers and also adjoining raiyat. The DCLR by his order dated 25.11.01 had however rejected such application for preemption by holding that respondent no. 5 was not adjoining raiyat of all the plots whereas the purchasers -petitioners themselves were adjoining raiyats of the few plots. The matter thereafter was taken to appeal at the instance of respondent no. 5 and the appellate court, Addl. Collector, Aurangabad too by order dated 6.12.03 had reiterated and confirmed the finding of the DCLR that respondent no. 5 was not adjoining raiyats of all the plots and in fact on this ground the appellate court having relied on the judgment of this court in the case of Smt. Sudama Devi and Others V/s. Rajendra Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 1973 Patna 199 had dismissed the appeal and in process rejected the applications for pre -emption of Respondent No. 5. The respondent no. 5 thereafter had moved in revision before the Board of Revenue and surprisingly the Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, without taking any further evidence on record, had reversed findings of both the DCLR and the Addl. Collector and that too without going into the main question as decided by the first two authorities as to whether respondent no. 5 was adjoining raiyat of all the plots. In fact it was at the stage of Board of Revenue that a third case was developed on behalf of the Respondent No. 5, which of course was not earlier gone into either by the DCLR or the Addl. Collector that respondent no. 5 was in fact co -sharer of all the plots in question which was covered by the sale deed.