BABUNI MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred, challenging the order, passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi, dated 22nd January, 2008 in Revision Case No. 18 of 2007, whereby, an order, passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, dated 24th December, 2004 in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 10 of 2004, has been quashed and set aside and the order, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, dated 5th June, 2004 in Land Ceiling Case No. 1 of 2004 has been upheld.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, has passed an order dated 5th June, 2004, upon an application, preferred by the petitioner under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act, 1961" for the sake of brevity), whereby, the petitioner was claiming a right of preemption. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an adjacent raiyat and co-sharer of the land, in question, and, therefore, the respondent cannot sell away the property to a third party, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to purchase the land, in question, and, therefore, an application was preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, which was numbered as Land Ceiling Case No. 1 of 2004. The said application, preferred by the petitioner, was dismissed and it was held that the land, in question, is not an agricultural land and, therefore, the right of pre-emption is never accrued to the petitioner. This order was passed on 5th June, 2004, which is at Annexure 2 to the memo of petition. Against this order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Act, 1961 before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, which was allowed vide order dated 24th December, 2004, which is at Annexure 3 to the memo of petition, and the order, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, dated 5th June, 2004, was quashed and set aside. Against this order, a revision application, which was numbered as Revision Case No. 18 of 2007, was preferred by the respondents, which was allowed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, vide order dated 24th January, 2008. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, in Revision Case No. 18 of 2007 is absolutely against the provisions of law, mainly for the reason that under Section 32 of the Act, 1961, the limitation period for preferring the revision application is thirty days whereas the revision was preferred after approximately three years and there was no separate application for condonation of delay. No notice was ever issued prior to condonation of delay and while allowing the revision application, in one line the delay has been condoned and, therefore also, the impugned order, passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no reasons have been assigned by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, while allowing the revision application, filed by the respondents. The said order is, therefore, a non-speaking order. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that after the order, passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, vide Annexure 4 to the memo of petition the land, in question, was registered in favour of the present petitioner on 8th December, 2006. Thus, the order passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh (Annexure 3 to the memo of petition) has already been executed by a document at Annexure 4 to the memo of petition, which is dated 8th December, 2006 i.e. much prior to the decision, delivered by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, in the revision application. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the revisional authority. Nonetheless, it is fairly submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that if the revisional authority has arrived at a decision that the order, passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, is totally a non-speaking order, then the revisional authority ought to have remanded the matter for a fresh decision by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, but, instead of doing so, an order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, has been upheld, without assigned any reason, worth the name, which is an error apparent on the face of the record and, hence also, the order, passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) It is further vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner (original applicant before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961) that in the earlier sale deed, which is at Annexure 1 to the memo of petition dated 20th September, 2003, it has been mentioned that the land, in question, is an agricultural land. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted vehemently that this is the document, which has given birth to the whole dispute, in question. By this very document, respondent No. 12 has sold away the property to respondent Nos. 5 to 11 and, therefore, an application was preferred by the present petitioner under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961, claiming a right of pre-emption. Thus, as per the document, executed by respondent No. 12 himself, the land, in question, is an agricultural land. This aspect of the matter has been lost sight of by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh and, therefore, let the matter be remanded to the lower appellate court i.e. Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, for a fresh decision in an appeal, already preferred by the present petitioner and let it be decided within the stipulated time, given by this Court, by quashing and setting aside the order, passed by the revisional authority i.e. Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, dated 22nd January, 2008 as well as by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, dated 24th December, 2004.