SAVITRI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR WITH

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) PETITIONERS in the three writ applications are the pre -emptors. They are assailing the order dated 30.8.2000 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in Rohtas Revision Case Nos. 47, 48, 49 and 50 of 2000, Annexure -5 whereunder revision filed by the vendor, Respondent No. 5 has been allowed setting aside the order dated 18.1.2000, Annexure -7 thereby affirming the original order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms i.e. Collector under the Act dated 22.8.1998, Annexure -6 dismissing the pre -emption case. Perusal of the three orders dated 30.8.2000, Annexure -5, 22.8.1998, Annexure -6 and 18.1.2000, Annexure -7 would indicate that Respondent No. 5 executed three sale deeds dated 22.5.1996 conveying the lands in question in favour of Respondent No. 6 which was registered on 30.9.1997. Petitioners filed pre -emption application under sub -section (3) of Section 16 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against private Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on 19.11.1997 impugning the three sale deeds. Respondent No. 6 appeared in the pre -emption case on 1.12.1997 and thereafter filed a show cause reply asserting that preemption cases be dismissed for the reason that the three sale deed dated 22.5.1996 were the subject matter of Title Suit Nos. 523 and 529 of 1997 at the instance of Khursida Khatun, wife of Respondent No. 5 who claimed the subject matter of the three sale deed as her personal property acquired by means of oral gift from private Respondent No. 5 in lieu of Mehar which could not have been transferred without her consent. In the title suits Khursida Khatun impleaded both the vendor Respondent No. 5 and the vendee Respondent No. 6 was a party defendant. Later the title suits with the consent of the parties were referred to the Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The Lok Adalat under judgment and decree dated 22.3.1998 decreed the suits and the three sale deeds were set aside. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms relying on the judgment and decree passed by the Lok Adalat in the aforesaid two suits dismissed the preemption case holding that the sale deed in question on the basis of which the claim for pre -emption was laid having been set aside by the Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, the claim of pre -emption also could not proceed and accordingly dismissed the same under order dated 22.8.1998, Annexure -6. After dismissal of the preemption case the pre -emptor filed appeal and the appellate authority having heard counsel for the parties under order dated 18.1.2000, Annexure -7, set aside the order of the learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms dated 22.8.1998, Annexure -6 holding that the proceedings taken in the two title suits before the Lok Adalat appears to be a collusive one as the suit was filed on 15.12.1997 whereas the pre -emption case was filed on 19.11.1997 and after appearance of Respondent No. 6 in the pre -emption case on 1.12.1997 consent decree was obtained on 22.3.1998 only with a view to defeat the pre -emption case.

(3.) AGAINST the order 18.1.2000, Annexure -7 the vendor filed revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue having heard counsel for the parties, set aside the appellate order dated 18.1.2000, Annexure -7 under the impugned judgment dated 30.8.2000, Annexure -5 holding that once the sale deed itself stood set aside by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, the right to pre -emption on the basis of the same sale deed could not have been allowed: -