THAGU CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application raises, rather an interesting question on the interpretation of Sec. 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act 12 of 1962).

(2.) The facts are simple : Respondents 6 and 7 transferred plot nos. 87 and 88 of Khata no. 679 situated in village Mile, Police Station Bindupur in the district of Vaishali to respondent no. 5, under a registered sale deed dated 27th May, 1974. The petitioners being admittedly the Raiyat of an adjoining plot of land. Filed application on the 26th August, 1974, claiming right of preemption under Sec. 16(3) of the Act, in respect of the said land. Respondent no. 8, who also wAs an adjoining Raiyat of the transferred land, filed an application on 5th September, 1974 for pre emption under Sec. 16 (3) of the Act. Both these applications had been filed after fulfilling all the requirement of law. The Deputy Collector-in-charge Land Reforms (hereinafter referred to as the D. C. L. R.) took cognizance of both the applications on the same date and both the applications were taken up for consideration together. The D. C. L. R. granted the claim of the petitioner and rejected the claim of respondent no. 8. on the ground that it was the petitioners who had first applied for grant of preemption in their favour. Respondent no. 8 then appealed, making the petitioners a party respondent in the said appeal, but the appeal was unsuccessful, the Collector confirming the D. C. L. R.'s order. Respondent no. 8 then moved the Board of Revenue in revlon and the learned Member. Board of Revenue reversed the order of preemption by observing that the intention behind the provision contained in Sec. 16 (3) of the Act was to prevent bifurcation of land and to ensure bigger sizeable block of land and that, therefore, that person should be granted the right of pre-emption who fulfilled such intention behind the said provision of law. He then observed that respondent no. 8 was preferrable to the petitioners for the purpose of being granted claim of pre-emption in respect of the transferred land. The petitioners being aggrieved by this order, have moved this Court.

(3.) 1 have heard learned counsel for the respe;tive parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has asserted that they having come first with the completed application under Sec. 16 (3) of the Act, their claim must prevail over all other who came later than them On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 has reiterated the view expressed by the learned member, Board of Revenue that in order to ensure the intention behind Sec. 16 (3) of the Act, the right of pre-emption lay with him, namely respondent no. 8.