IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MJC No.1685 of 2011.
1.Govindra Rai
2.Julum Rai, Both sons of Late Suraj Rai.
3.Punkal Rai son of Lae Jangi Rai.
All residents of village Bakari Basarat P.S.Sahebganj
Dist. Muzaffarpur. Petitioners.
Versus
1.The State Of Bihar.
2.Sri S.P.Keshav son of not known, Member,
Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna.
3.Sri Sudhir Kumar Singh son of not known,
Addl. Collector, Muzaffazrpur.
4.Sri Md.Atahar son of not known,
Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Muzaffarpur, West.
5.Shankar Rai.
6.Suresh Rai.
7.Umesh Rai.
8.Upendra Rai.
9.Arbind Kumar,
All sons of Late Jai Mangal Rai.
10.Phuldeo Rai.
11.Kishori Rai, Both sons of Late Banwari Rai.
12.Mostt. Breyasti Devi wife of Late Babulal Rai
13.Balendra Rai.
14.Ravindra Rai.
15.Ramesh Rai.
16.Rajeshwar Rai. All sons of late Babu Lal Rai.
17.Mostt. Matiya Devi wife of Late Gena Rai.
18.Ram Pravesh Rai son of Late Gena Rai.
All residents of village Pakri Basarat Anchal,
P.S. Sahebganj District Muzaffarpur.
19.Smt. Patiya Devi daughter of Late Gena Rai,
wife of Bimodhi Rai, Resident of village Tarwan
Majhauliya, P.S. and Anchal Paroo, District
Muzaffarpur.
20.Smt. Raj Kali Devi daughter of Late Gena
Rai wife of Chhabila Rai, Resident of village
Bara Tola, P.S.Keshariya District East Champaran
Opp. Party.
-----------
For the petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, Adv
For the Res.6 & 7 : Mr. Yugal Kishore, Adv.
Mr.Arvind Kumar, Adv.
2. 30.08.2010 Heard the parties.
The petitioner as a pre-emptor succeeded before the
revenue authorities and the pre-emption was allowed in his favour. The
writ petition preferred by the purchaser challenging the order of the
Member, Board of Revenue dated 4th December 1991 in Revision Case
No. 648 of 1990 ( Jay Mangal Rai and others v. Suraj Rai and others)
2
was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 18th November
2009.
The grievance of the petitioners is that the ceiling
authorities are not taking the required consequential steps and the
sale-deed has not yet been executed in favour of the pre-emptor nor
possession has been handed over to them. The authorities are expected
to act in accordance with law after pre-emption application attained
finality. However, this Court does not like to proceed in contempt
because we find that the writ petition preferred by the purchaser was
simply dismissed and the order of pre-emption is, in fact, that of the
authorities and that they must implement the order of pre-emption. In
case the authorities do not act as per law, in spite of notice by the
petitioners, they will be at liberty to take all necessary steps, including
moving this Court through writ petition.
The contempt application is finally disposed of.
(Shiva Kirti Singh,J)
Jay/ (Shivaji Pandey, J)