SHEIKH MOHAMMAD UMAR Vs. BAIDYANATH GIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner purchased from Respondent No. 2 a block of land consisting of nine plots for Rs. 12,000.00. The numbers of the plots were 571, 573, 574, 575, 606, 610, 611, 627 and 632, appertaining to different Khatas, but in the same village. The sale deed was executed on the 15th June, 1966. It was presented for registration and execution was admitted by the executant before the Registrar on the 24th June, 1966. The document eventually was registered, in the sense of copying it in the registers maintained in the registry office, on the 15th October, 1966.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 applied on the 20th August, 1966, under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of surplus Land) Act, 1962 (Bihar Act XII of 1962), hereinafter called the Act, claiming himself to be a Raiyat holding lands adjoining the lands transferred, for the transfer of the lands to him on the terms and conditions contained in the deed of transfer executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of the petitioner. His application was rejected by the Subdivisional Officer on the ground that Respondent No. 1 was holding land adjoining to only seven plots and he was not holding any land as a Raiyat adjoining two plots, e.g., Nos. 574 and 575. Since, in the view of the Sub-divisional officer it was not possible to apportion and find out separately the value of the seven plots, as the consideration money mentioned in the document was indivisible for the entire block of land consisting of nine plots, no pre-emption could be ordered in favour of Respondent No. 1. The same view was upheld by the Additional Collector in the appeal filed by Respondent No. 1, His appeal was dismissed. A revision was taken to the Commissioner of Tirhut Division, but, since it was not warranted by the Act or the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) the revision failed before him. Then a revision was taken before the Board of Revenue, Bihar. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, by his order dated the 26th March, 1968, allowed the revision and granted the application of Respondent No. 1 filed on the 20th August, 1966. He has done so chiefly on the ground that the expression "land transferred" in Section 16(3) of the Act would mean the entire block of land transferred, if it is in one block, and, the right of the person holding land as a Raiyat adjoining the land transferred has to be determined with reference to the entire block of land transferred and not plot-wise. He also expressed the view that even in a case where the application for pre-emption was by a Raiyat holding land adjoining a portion of the land transferred, it was possible to apportion the consideration money and grant the right to pre-emption accordingly.

(3.) The petitioner has obtained a rule from this Court against the respondents to show cause why the order of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, dated the 26th March, 1968, be not quashed by grant of a writ of certiorari. Cause has been shown on behalf of Respondent No. 1.