CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.8953 OF 1989
With
CIVIL WRIT JURIDICTION CASE No.10035 OF 1989
In the matter of an application under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of Indian.
---------
SANT LAL BHAGAT S/O CHAMRU BHAGAT R/O VILLAGE- NIJHARA
BIBIPUR, P.S.& p.o. SIGORI ( PALIGANJ) PATNA———
——PETITIONER ( in CWJC No. 8953 of 1989)
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR
3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, PATNA
4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS DANAPUR
5. VISHUNDEO SINGH S/O LATE BULAKI SINGH R/O VILLAGE- NIGHARA
BIBIPUR PS. PLAIGANJ (SIGORI) DISTT- PATNA — PRE-EMPTOR
RESPONDENT-PETITIONERS— RESPONDENT 1ST SET
6. DEO NANDAN BAGAT S/O SHIV BALAK BHAGAT R/O VILLAGE NIJHARA
BIBIPUR PS SIGORI (PALIGANJ) DISTT0 PATNA–RESPONDENT 2ND
SET. (in CWJC No. 8953 of 1989)
———-
PARWATI DEVI W/O SHRI SANT LAL BHAGAT, R/O VILLAGE- NIJHARA
BIBIPUR PO & PS- SIGORI (PALIGANJ),DISTT.- PATNA—-
PEPTITIONER (IN CWJC NO. 10035 OF 1989)
VERSUS
Respondents are the same as in CWJC No. 8953 of 1989
———-
For The Petitioner : Mr. Ashok kumar Keshri, advocate
& Mr. AMBIKA BHAGAT, Advocate(in
both the cases)
For The Respondent :Mr. D. Choudhary, JC to SC III
( in both the cases)
———-
P R E S E N T
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
*********
A.K.Tripathi,J. Petitioners want quashing of annexures 4 and 6 of
the present writ applications by virtue of which right of pre-
emption claimed by them was initially rejected by learned DCLR
vide order contained in annexure-4, though in appeal the
petitioners succeeded before the Collector. But vide annexure-6 in
exercise of power of revision learned Member Board of Revenue
has set aside the appellate order upholding the decision of learned
DCLR.
Respondent no.5 Vishundeo Singh filed a petition
under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of
2
Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (herein
after referred to as the Act) with regard to two sale deeds which
were executed in favour of one Chamru Bhagat (now deceased)
and Smt. Parwati Devi who is daughter- in- law of the original
petitioner, Chamru Bhagat in CWJC No.8953 of 1989. Claim of
respondent no.5 that he was the adjoining raiyats of the vended
plot was found to be in order. Learned DCLR further recorded that
both Chamru Bhagat and Parwati Devi were not boundary raiyats
of the land in question, based on the evidence which has emerged
in the proceeding. In that view of the matter the pre-emption
application in favour of respondent no.5 was allowed.
On appeal learned Collector interfered with the
order of learned DCLR by holding that some portion of plot nos.
596 and 590 touched with each other and therefore the order of
pre-emption application passed in favour of respondent no.5 was
set aside. The matter travelled to the Member Board of Revenue
and the Member Board of Revenue disposed of both the Revision
Case Nos. 54/89 and 55/89 by a common order because of
commonality of the issue and the fact. Though the Member Board
of Revenue was exercising power of revision but it seems that for
larger interest of justice he has gone into every facet of dispute
including the facts and evidence which had come in two
proceedings. On perusal of the order of learned Collector he
categorically held that the order in appeal could not be sustained
as plot no. 596 did not adjoin the northern block of plot no. 590
which had been purchased by Chamru Bhagat. In so far as the
southern block of plot no. 590 which was purchased by Smt.
Parwati Devi it was held that plot no. 596 does touch the southern
block of plot no. 590 but that does not belong to Parwati Devi and
effort was made by filing an affidavit by one Ram Ishwar Bhagat
stating that the petitioner was a co-sharer. But then the above fact
3
had not been believed in view of the fact that even in the sale
deeds respondent no.5 was shown to be a boundary raiyat which
was a clinching evidence in this regard, though effort was made to
change the boundary of the vended land by bringing up a deed of
rectification but this was obviously done to defeat the claim of
pre-emption filed on behalf of respondent no.5 in both the cases.
The Court has gone through the impugned orders
specially the order of Member Board of Revenue and the Court
does not find any legal infirmity in the decision rendered in the
matter.
In this view of the matter both the writ
applications have no merit and the same are dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)
Patna High Court, Patna
Dated the 13th January, 2009
NAFR (RPS)