JALIL Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by order dated 06.11.2006 in Revision Case No. 23 of 2005, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, the father of the petitioner namely, Sahadat Mian acquired 12.75 acres land in Khata No. 5, Plot No. 443 through registered sale deed dated 29.05.1973. Subsequently, the father of the petitioner sold 10 decimals land in Plot No. 443 to his daughter namely, Juveda Khatoon through registered sale deed dated 06.08.1986. After the death of his father, the remaining 2.75 acres land in Plot No. 443 came in possession of the petitioner. The sister of the petitioner namely, Juveda Khatoon sold the aforesaid land to Baleshwari Devi on 31.01.2002. The petitioner filed pre -emption application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961 and the said pre -emption case was allowed vide order dated 25.07.2002. The vendee -respondent No. 6 filed Land Ceiling Appeal No. 15 of 2002 which was allowed and order dated 25.07.2002 was set -aside. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Revision Case No. 15 of 2003. The Revisional Authority set -aside the appellate order and remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms for a fresh consideration on the point whether the disputed land is agricultural land or not. The Pre -emption Case was re -registered as L.C. Case No. 01 of 2004 -05. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms dismissed the pre -emption application vide order dated 15.09.2004 in L.C. Case No. 02 of 2002 -03/01 of 2004 -05. The said order was challenged in Appeal No. 22 of 2004 by the petitioner however, the appeal was dismissed on 31.05.2005 and the Revision Case No. 23 of 2005 filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue also stood dismissed on 06.11.2006. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, vide order dated 20.12.2005 the Revisional Authority appointed Advocate Commissioner for verifying the nature of the disputed land. In the said order the Member, Board of Revenue has recorded that the claim of the Pre -emptors that they are adjacent Raiyats has not been challenged. The Advocate Commissioner submitted a report stating that the disputed land is a "Homestead Land" still, the revision petition has been dismissed on the ground that the suit land is not agricultural land. Referring to a decision in "Saikun Bibi Vs. State of Jharkhand" reported in : 2005 (4) JLJR 3, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, definition of land includes "Homestead Land" and merely because a dwelling house has been found constructed over the suit land, the suit land does not lose its character as agricultural land.