IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.992 of 2011
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11324 of 2005
======================================================
Ashok Kumar Thakur, son of late Kamda Nand Thakur, resident of Village
Bhachchi, P.S. Madhubani, District Madhubani.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Land Reforms Department,
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Madhubani.
3. The Additional Collector, Madhubani.
4. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Old Secretariat, Patna.
5. Sri Laxmi Thakur, son of late Ajodhi Thakur.
6. Sri Basdeo Thakur, son of late Ajodhi Thakur.
7. Sri Satya Narayan Thakur, son of late Ajodhi Thakur.
Respondent nos. 5 to 7 all are residents of Village Bhachchi, P.S.
Madhubani, District Madhubani.
8. Smt. Lalita Thakurain, wife of Sri Sharda Nand Thakur, resident of
Village Bhachchi, P.S. Madhubani, District Madhubani.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajkumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay, S.C.-11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
4/ 10-08-2011 This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is
preferred by the writ petitioner-pre-emptor against the judgment
and order dated 25th April 2011 passed by the learned single
Judge in above CWJC No.11324 of 2005.
Patna High Court LPA No.992 of 2011 (4) dt.10-08-2011
2
The appellant’s claim for right to pre-emption in respect
of the lands in Village- Bhachchi, P.S. and District Madhubani
under Section 16 (3) of The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of
Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 was
accepted by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Madhubani
under his order dated 24th December 2002 on the grounds that the
appellant was the adjoining raiyat of the lands sold and that he
was the co-sharer of the landlord- the respondent no.8 herein. The
said finding has been upset by the first appellate authority and
confirmed by the revisional authority as well as by the learned
single Judge.
In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the two
authorities below and by the learned single Judge, no interference
is warranted.
Appeal is dismissed in limine.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ)
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
Anjani/BTiwary/-
