IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.912 of 2010
(Arising out of CWJC No. 5178 of 2010)
1. Raghunandan Choudhary, S/O Late Siyaram Choudhary, R/O Vill.-
Ninga, P.S. Barauni, Distt.- Begusarai
2. Shivnandan Choudhary, S/O Late Siyaram Choudhary, R/O Vill.- Ninga,
P.S. Barauni, Distt.- Begusarai
3. Ganesh Choudhary, S/O Late Lawbin Choudhary, R/O Vill.- Samsa, P.S.
Bakhari, Distt.- Begusarai.....................................Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna
2. The Collector, Begusarai
3. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna
4. Mohammad Ishaque, S/O Late Abdul Sattar, R/O Vill.- Devana, P.S.
Barauni, Distt.- Begusarai
5. Mohammad Safdar Ali, S/O Late Kalimuddin, R/O Vill.- Deona, P.S.
Barauni, Distt.- Begusarai
6. Mohammad Khurshid Ali, S/O Late Kalimuddin, R/O Vill.- Deona, P.S.
Barauni, Distt.- Begusarai
7. Mohammad Parvej Ali, S/O Late Kalimuddin, R/O Vill.- Deona, P.S.
Barauni, Distt.- Begusarai.....................................Respondents
-----------
3. 24.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the
order under appeal whereby the Writ Court has considered the
relevant issues and after finding that the original Court of D.C.L.R.
had failed to consider an important issue, interfered only to the
extent of remanding the matter to the original Court instead of
remand to the Appellate Court as ordered by the Revisional
Authority, the Board of Revenue.
The appellants are the original purchasers. The D.C.L.R.
had rejected the claim of pre-emption made by the writ petitioner
but without considering his further defence that a subsequent sale
deed in respect of part of the land in question was sham and
fraudulent. This issue was of considerable importance in view of
2
Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt.
Priyambada Devi Vs. the Additional Member, Board of Revenue,
1985 P.L.J.R. 662 (DB).
It was open for the preemptor to either claim pre-
emption against the subsequent purchaser also since the purchase
was made prior to filing of the pre-emption application or else he
could take the defence that the subsequent sale deed was sham and
fraudulent. The Writ Court noticed that the pre-emptor had alleged
the subsequent sale deed to be sham and fraudulent.
In our considered view, the interest of justice is better
served and all the parties shall be protected from unnecessary
remand in future if the matter is remanded to the original Authority,
the D.C.L.R. as has been done by the Writ Court.
In our view the matter requires no interference. The
appeal is dismissed.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
(Shivaji Pandey, J.)
Mkc/