LALJEE RAM BHAGAT Vs. NAND LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has made this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ quashing the orders dated the 15th of September, 1966, of the Collector, Purnea (Annexure 1), 22nd of March, 1967, of the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division (Annexure 2) and 27th of March, 1968, of the Additional Member, Beard of Revenue, Bihar, at Patna (Annexure 3).

(2.) On the 8th of November, 1965, the petitioner purchased from one Asharfi Yadav 54 1/2 decimals of land in Plot No. 220 khata No. 507, Touzi No. 1239, in Katihar, in the district of Purnea. On 9th of December, 1965, the petitioner purchased ten dhurs of land in plot No. 216 from one Hiralal Yadav. On the 20th of January, 1966, opposite party No. 1, who admittedly owns part of plot No. 220, made an application before the Collector of Purnea under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area And Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1962 (hereafter to be referred to as "the Act"). The petitioner did not appear before the Collector to oppose that application and accordingly it was allowed ex parte (vide Annexure 1). The petitioner was directed to convey the land purchased by him in plot No. 220 to opposite party No. 1 by executing and registering a document of transfer within a period of two months. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner and the same was dismissed (vide Annexure 2). The petitioner then moved the Board of Revenue and his application there too has been dismissed (Vide Annexure 3) on a finding that plot No. 216, which was purchased by the petitioner subsequent to his purchase of a portion of plot No. 220, was not adjacent to the other plot, that is, plot No. 220, as another plot intervenes between these two plots.

(3.) In this Court after the filing of the main application a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner alleging that the petitioner's vendor Asharfi Yadav offered for sale his share in plot No. 220 to opposite party No. 1 on the 10th of October, 1965, and he refused to purchase the same and that on the 9th of December, 1965, the petitioner purchased from one Rasik Lal Yadav plot No. 219, which is adjoining to plot No. 220. These new assertions are questions of fact which require investigation and as those questions were not raised either in appeal before the Commissioner or in the application in revision before the Board of Revenue, in my opinion, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise them here. I accordingly proceed to examine whether the petitioner has been able to make out a case for issuance of a writ on the admitted facts which were raised in the courts below.