MUKHI MALI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order of the Additional Collector of Patna, dated 22,2.1973 (annexure 2) and the Additional Member of the Board of Revenue, dated the 30th December, 1975 (annexure 3) rejecting his application for pre-emption filed under section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be called as the Act).

(2.) The undisputed facts are these. The plot in question is survey plot no. 635 of village Jaitia in the district of Patna having a small area of two decimals. This plot was purchased by respondents 6 and 7 in the name of Rajbellam Mahato by a registered sale-deed, dated 25.1.1941. It is said that there was a private partition between the brothers and on that account the northern half of plot no. 635 measuring one decimal was alloted to Rampravesh Mahato (respondent no. 6) while the southern half measuring one decimal was allotted to Rajballam Mahato. On 17.12.1967 respondent no. 6 had sold his one decimal to Satyadeo Singh, respondent no. 5 by a registered deed of sale. In the sale-deed which was executed, on >the northern boundary the name of the petitioner was mentioned as having his house there. The petitioner purchased the remaining one decimal of plot no. 635 from Rajballam Mahato, the brother of respondent no. 6 by a registered sale-deed, dated 23.12.1967.

(3.) The petitioner made an application under section 16 (3) of the Act claiming preemption on the ground that he was adjacent raiyat of the plot vended by respondent no. 6 to respondent no. 5, namely plot no. 634 which was adjacent north as already mentioned in the sale-deed executed in favour of respondent no. 5. The Sub-divisional Officer, Barh. by his order, dated 17.5.1967 allowed the claim of pre-emption of the petitioner. On appeal taken by respondent no. 5 the Additional Collector summarily dismissed it but on revision filed by him before the Commissioner it was allowed and the matter was sent back to the Additional Collector for a fresh consideration.