NABIJAN MIAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the order dated 5.8.1991 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, contained in Annexure '2 ' whereby petition under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been allowed and orders contained in Annexures 3 and 5 passed by the appellate authority and revisional authority respectively.

(2.) THE short facts are that one Ghazi Mian, ancestor of respondents 6 to 11 executed a sale deed on 3.3.1979 in favour of all the three petitioners with respect to 11 Dhurs of land for a consideration of Rs. 500/ -, registration of which was completed on 20.3.1979. Respondent No.5, Abdul Jalal filed a petition under section 16(3) of the Act on 8.5.1979 claiming preemption with respect to land covered by the aforesaid sale deed. In that application petitioner no.1 alone was impleaded as opposite party. So far petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, they were not impleaded as opposite party in the original application but for their addition on 18.9.1979 a petition was filed on behalf of the pre -emptor. Upon the said application the original authority by its order dated 18.9.1979 added the aforesaid two persons as a party and thereafter notice was directed to be issued. Subsequently by order dated 4.7.1980 the said order impleading petitioners 2 and 3 as party was confirmed and direction was given for issuing notice of the main pre -emption application to the aforesaid persons. So far petitioners and 2 are concerned, they had already appeared in the pre -emption proceeding but petitioner no.3 had never appeared there.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners in suport of this writ application has raised two points; firstly it has ben submitted that the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to a petition under section 16(3) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents -pre -emptor on the other hand contended that the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act does apply even in relation to a petition filed under section 16(3) of the Act. In support of his contention learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a decision in the case of Krishna Kumar Choudhary Versus Alliance Industries Ltd. and ors. [1991 (1) PLJR (S.C.) 3]. In that case it was laid down that in view of the provisions of section 29 of the Limitation Act section 5 of the said Act was applicable in relation to a pre -emption application filed under section 16(3) of the Act. We find that the point raised in this case is concluded by the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in relation to pre -emption application. The original authority was directed to consider the petition for condonation of delay on merit and pass order thereupon in accordance with law. This being the position we do not find any substance in the first point raised on behalf of the petitioners.