KAULESHWAR VISHWARKARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Respondent no. 5(a) &(b).

(2.) Both the original petitioner being the purchaser and the Respondent no.5, preemptor have died during pendency of the writ petition and are substituted by their legal heirs. Respondent no.5 instituted a Land Ceiling Case No. 9 of 2000 in the Court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Hazaribag after complying with the requirement of Sec. 16 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 being aggrieved by the sale of 1 decimal of land under Khata no. 45, Plot no. 2516, village Sultana through registered sale deed no. 13032 dated 9.8.2000 executed by Respondent no.6 in favour of the original petitioner for a valuable consideration of Rs.10,000.00, claiming herself as adjoining raiyat. The L.R.D.C. Hazaribag vide order dated 6.3.2001 (Annexure-1) allowed the application holding the Respondent no.5 as adjoining raiyat and refuting the contention of the Purchaser/Petitioner that the piece of land is homestead instead of agricultural land. Learned L.R.D.C, Hazaribag, Respondent no.4 came to a finding on the basis of the materials produced by the applicant, such as the voter list, ration card, bank account of her mother, Gulabi Devi, gift deed and agreement of sale executed by the vendor of the petitioner in respect of the same disputed piece of land on 25.2.1996 as also copy of the Khatian that she is the adjacent raiyat and co-sharer. He also came to the finding that nature of the land is agricultural and it falls within village Sultana. Opposite Party/petitioner was directed to transfer the piece of land within a period of 15 days. The Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Hazaribag in Appeal Case No. 5 of 2001-02 instituted by the original petitioner did not find any reason to differ with the findings of the Learned L.R.D.C, Hazaribag and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 3.9.2002 (Annexure-2). The Land Ceiling Revision No. 12 of 2003 preferred by the aggrieved petitioner before the Member, Board of Revenue at Ranchi, Jharkhand has also been rejected by the impugned order dated 27.6.2003 on the ground of delay of 5 months and failure to implead the vendor Respondent no. 6 herein, who was also proper party in the proceedings.

(3.) Petitioner has assailed the revisional order dated 27.6.2003 (Annexure-5) passed by the Respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laboured to press home that the delay in filing revision was on account of her ill health. Medical prescription is enclosed as Annexure-4. However, the same was not produced before the Revisional Authority. It is further submitted that non-impleadment of the vendor could not defeat the challenge made by the petitioner in the revision petition as the vendor was not a necessary party against whom petitioner sought any relief. Absence of the vendor should not have persuaded the Revisional Authority to dismiss the revision on that ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the piece of land is having an area of 1 decimal only and Respondents have not been able to establish that it is in the nature of agricultural land. He has also referred to the submission of some of the witnesses of the Preemptor who also have averred that land in question is a 'Tanr' and adjacent to it several houses have been constructed. Petitioner has not been able to show any other admissible documents to substantiate its contention that the land in question do not fall in the category of agricultural land but was homestead land.