LAICHU CHAMAR Vs. BAIJNATH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.07.2007 passed by the learned State Of Jharkhand Through Director General Of Police Versus Thakur Ajit Kumar Single Judge in CWJC No. 8198/95P by which the learned Single Judge had been pleased to allow the writ petition; consequently the order passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue as also the order passed by the Additional Collector, Garhwa who had been pleased to hold that the appellant herein had a preferential right of purchase of the land adjoining to the land of the petitioners/respondents herein was quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge has given a detailed account of the facts of the case and to recapitulate the same briefly, it may be stated that the appellant claimed preferential right to purchase the land belonging to the respondent herein and it was alleged that the sale deed which the respondent No. 1 executed in favour of his wife was a sham transaction merely to defeat the right of the appellant to assert his right of pre -emption in view of Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. The appellant's case is that his land although is adjoining to the land in question in regard to which a suit for pre - emption had been filed by the appellant in the Revenue Court the respondent -land holder executed a sale deed for the plot in favour of his wife which exists in between his plot of land and the land belonging to the appellant herein.

(3.) THIS gave a cause to the appellant to file a suit for pre -emption on the premise that as he had already filed a suit claiming right, of pre -emption in regard to the adjoining plot of land which admittedly belonged to respondent No. 1, he with oblique motive executed a sale deed in favour of his wife in regard to the same plot of land which was registered after the filing of his suit. The revenue courts being the courts of Additional Collector and the Additional Member, Board of Revenue were pleased to hold in favour of the appellant herein holding therein that the appellant had a preferential right to purchase the plot of land and the sale deed which was registered in the year 1992 was registered subsequent to the filing of the suit from which it was inferred that the sale deed executed by the respondent in favour of his wife was merely to defeat the right of pre -emption raised by the appellant. The Vendor of the land i.e. respondent No. 1 herein filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge and assailed the orders passed by the Revenue Courts below.