BAIJNATH RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been field by the petitioners seeking appropriate orders for quashing of the order dated 2.12.1994 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, in Revision case No. 426 of 1993 whereby the Revision Application filed by the petitioners against the order dated 6.4.1993 passed by the Additional Collector, Garhwa in C.S. No. 3 of 1991 -92 was dismissed. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 30.7.1993 of the Addl. Collector also whereby the order passed by the Dy. Collector Land Reforms, Garhwa dismissing the pre -emption application of the respondent No. 5 was set aside.

(2.) THE facts of the case, briefly stated, is that the disputed lands originally belonged to respondent No. 6. By a registered sale deed executed on 12.12.1990 and registered on 24.5.1991, he had sold the land to petitioner No. 1. Subsequently, the petitioner No. 1 by virtue of two separate sale deeds executed on 8.2.1991, had sold the portion of the disputed land to his own wife and also to petitioner No. 4. Both the sale deeds were registered on 2.1.1992. Prior to the date of registration of the two sale deeds the respondent No. 1 filed an application for pre -emption on 19.7.1991 against the petitioner No. 1 before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Garhwa, under Sec. 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. The claim for pre -emption made by the respondent No. 5 on the ground that he was an adjoining raiyat of the landed plot, was contested by the petitioner No. 1 primarily on the ground that he had already sold the disputed lands much prior to the date of the filing of the application for pre - emption and therefore, the application for pre -emption was not tenable. Further ground advanced was that subsequent vendee/purchaser was not impleaded as a necessary party within three months period of limitation from the date of registration of the sale deed and therefore, the claim for pre -emption was not maintainable.

(3.) MR . Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order on the ground that both the Board of Revenue as well as the Addl. Collector had failed to appreciate the facts of the case and the principle of law involved in proper perspective and have arrived at an erroneous and misleading finding that the sale deeds executed by the petitioner No. 1 in favour of his wife was a sham and bencuni transaction, even in absence of any evidence or any allegation made by the pre -emptor. Learned Counsel submits that the impugned orders have been passed not only by wrong application of the principle of law but also on misconstruing the actual date of the transaction and the board of Revenue has committed thereby an error of record. Learned Counsel explains that after having lawfully acquired the lands from the original owner on 12,12,1990, the petitioner No. 1 had sold the disputed lands by two sale deeds executed on 8.2.1991, both of which were registered on 2.1.1992. The transfer of land by virtue of the sale deed unto the vendees was complete on the date of execution of the sale deed. Respondent No,