SADHU MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 06.01.2016 passed in Revision Case No.06 of 2014 by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand is under challenge, whereby and whereunder the order dated 02.04.2012 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms in L.C. Case No.05 of 2009-10 and by Additional Collector, Ramgarh dated 04.11.2013 passed in L.C. Appeal No.01 of 2012-13 by which the application filed under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 has been reversed under the revisional jurisdiction.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners as per the pleading made in the writ petition that they being co-sharer and adjacent raiyat have got first right for transfer of the land in their favour in order to achieve and spirit of the Act, 1961 but ignoring the same the lands in question has been transferred by the respondent no.7 in favour of respondent nos.5 and 6 by virtue of registered sale deed dated 22.07.2009 vide Annexure-1 which led the petitioner to make an application under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 which as per the provision and condition stipulated therein before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms which has been registered as L.C. Case No.05 of 2009-10. After being called upon by the authority the respondent nos. 5 to 7 have appeared and contested the case. The original authority has passed the order on 02.04.2012 holding the petitioners as co-sharer and adjacent raiyat of the land in question and accordingly passed direction in exercise of power conferred under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 to transfer the land in favour of the petitioner through the registered sale deed. The order passed by the original authority has been challenged before the Additional Collector, Ramgarh but vide order dated 04.11.2013 he has refused to interfere with the finding and the direction as contained in the order passed by the original authority, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ramgarh.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the original authority has not appreciated by considering the factual dispute by discarding the specific finding recorded in the orders about the status of the petitioners of adjacent raiyat and the co-sharer.