Kailash Devi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 20 April, 2011

                                                  6


               In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
                      W.P.(C) No.4142 of 2003
               Kailash Devi ...........................................Petitioner
                      VERSUS
                State of Jharkhand and others........... Respondents

               CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD

               For the Petitioner   :Mr.Awnish Shankar
               For the State        : Mr. R.A.Gupta
               For the Respondent no.5:Mr.V.K.Prasad

4 / 20.4.11

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner did purchase a piece of land measuring 1 decimal which was never

agricultural land, rather it was a homestead land, still an application was filed by the

respondent no.5 under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling

Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 claiming himself to be an adjoining

raiyat before the Land Reform Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. That application

was allowed and therefore, the petitioner had to prefer an appeal before the

Additional Collector, Hazaribagh who did find that the land in dispute is not an

agricultural land, still the appeal was dismissed.

Being aggrieved with that order, a revision was preferred before the Member,

Board of Revenue which was also dismissed by holding that the application is barred

by time and at the same time it was held that the application is not maintainable on

account of non-joinder of the necessary party and hence, this writ application has

been filed wherein by filing supplementary affidavit, certain documents have been

brought on record showing that the land which was claimed by the petitioner to be

adjoining land to the land in question is never agricultural land, rather it is

homestead land and on account of that also, the application for pre-emption was

never maintainable.

The said supplementary affidavit have recently been filed, copy of which

never seems to have served upon the counsel appearing for the respondent no.5.

Hence, let a copy of the supplementary affidavit be served upon the counsel

appearing for the respondent no.5 so that reply to that, if any, may be filed within

three weeks.

Let this matter be listed after three weeks.

ND/                                                                        (R.R.Prasad, J.)