SHIV LAL MANDAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a pre-emptor in a pre-emption proceeding, under Section 16 (3) of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). His pre-emption application was allowed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Biraul, Darbhanga (hereinafter referred to as 'DCLR'), by an order, dated 04.05.2001. An appeal, giving rise to Appeal Case No. 3 of 2001- 02 was preferred against the said order of the DCLR, before the Additional Collector, Darbhanga, who, by order, dated 26.05.2003, set aside the order of the DCLR, on the ground that the disputed land did not come within the definition of 'land' under Section 2 (f) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Additional Collector, Darbhanga, the petitioner filed a revision application before the Board of Revenue, Patna. The Member, Board of Revenue, Patna, by his order, dated 21.02.2005, passed in Revision Case No. 141 of 2003, has upheld the order of the Appellate Authority, i.e., the Additional Collector, Darbhanga, on recording a finding that the land, which was subject matter of pre-emption proceeding, did not come within the definition of 'land' under Section 2(f) of the Act. The order of the Member, Board of Revenue, Patna, dated 21.02.2005, passed in Revision Case No. 141 of 2003 and the order passed by the Additional Collector, Darbhanga, dated, 26.05.2003, are under challenge in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel representing private respondent nos. 5 and 6, who are the purchasers of the land in question.

(3.) The case has a chequered history. This writ application was earlier allowed by judgment and order, dated 14.03.2011, passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It seems that there was no representation on behalf of the private respondent nos. 5 and 6 when the matter was taken up, though notices were validly served on them and they had also entered appearance through vakalatnama. There was no counter affidavit filed on their behalf. The said respondents, thereafter, preferred an appeal under the Letters Patent of this Court against the order, dated,14.03.2011, passed in this case, being L.P.A. No. 853 of 2012, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 22.11.2012, on the ground of delay. A review application, being Civil Review No. 2 of 2013, seeking review of the order, dated 22.11.2012, passed by the Division Bench, filed by respondent nos. 5 and 6, also came to be dismissed by an order, dated 26.09.2013. Respondent nos. 5 and 6, thereafter, preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal and review application, giving rise to SLP (C) No. 7918-7919 of 2014, which were subsequently converted into Civil Appeal Nos. 416-417 of 2017. The Supreme Court, by judgment and order, dated 13.01.2017, allowed the civil appeals mainly on the ground that there were reasons available for condonation of delay in preferring Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, after setting aside the order of the Division Bench, dated 22.11.2012, passed in L.P.A. 853 of 2012 and the order, dated 26.09.2013, passed in Civil Review No. 2 of 2013, the Supreme Court remanded the matter back to this Court for deciding the Letters Patent Appeal on merit. L.P.A. No. 853 of 2012, on remand from the Supreme Court, has been disposed of by judgment and order, dated 01.02.2018, passed by a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench has allowed the appeal and set aside the order, dated 14.03.2011, passed in this case and has, again, remanded the matter back to this Court for fresh adjudication.