Hazrat Ali vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27th November, 2018 passed by the Court of Member, Board of Revenue,

Jharkhand in Case No. 13 of 2013 whereby the revision application of the petitioner has been dismissed. Further prayer has been made for quashing

the order dated 27th April, 2013 passed by the Additional Collector, Pakur in Pre-emption Case No.02 of 2012 as well as the order dated 27th April,

2012 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Pakur (respondent no.3) in Pre-emption case No.01 of 2011-12, whereby the said courts below

have rejected the right of pre-emption of the petitioner by holding that the petitioner is not the adjacent raiyat in respect of the transferred land

measuring 08 kathas pertaining to Plot No. 2822, Khewat No.01, Mouza Prithvinagar, Village Siteshnagar, Police Station Pakur, District - Pakur

(hereinafter referred to as ""said land"").

The factual background of the case, as stated in the present writ petition, is that the petitioner had purchased the part of Plot No.2822 by virtue of

registered sale deed no.1642 of 2006 and, thus, he claimed to have become the adjoining raiyat of the said land. The said land was transferred by a

registered sale deed no.1338 dated 10th March, 2011 by the owner-Abdul Basir to his wife Nur Nehar Khatoon on consideration amount of

Rs.1,00,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application under section 16(3)(i) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and

Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 well within three months from the date of such transfer, which was numbered as Pre- emption Case no.01 of

2011-12. In the said case, the respondents appeared and denied that the petitioner is the adjacent raiyat. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Pakur

(respondent no.3) vide order dated 27th April, 2012 rejected the claim of the petitioner by holding that the petitioner failed to produce any sound

evidence showing that he was the adjoining raiyat of the said land. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no.2 being Pre-emption

Case No.02 of 2012, however, the said appeal was also dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision petition being Revision Case

No.13 of 2013 in the court of Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, which was dismissed vide order dated 27th November, 2018, affirming the

orders passed by the respondent no.2 and the respondent no.3. Hence, the present writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the respondent revenue authorities are illegal and unsustainable in the eye of

law, as they failed to consider the evidence on record that the petitioner was the adjoining raiyat of the said land. The courts below failed to take into

consideration that the petitioner was the only adjoining raiyat of the said land. It is further submitted that the order of the courts below are the result of

non-consideration of facts and documents as well as the grounds taken by the petitioner. The findings of the courts below are factually incorrect and

as such the same are liable to be set aside. It is also submitted that the sale deed of the petitioner conclusively proves that the petitioner is the adjoining

raiyat.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner, I have gone through the orders passed by the courts below. The respondent no.3, while passing the order dated 27th April, 2012, has

observed that the petitioner is not the adjacent raiyat of the said land, as would be evident from the sale deed no.803 of 2011 by which the respondent

no.4 had purchased the land appertaining to plot no.2822 and 2882 measuring a total area of 18 kathas and 18 Dhur from respondent nos.6 to 9. It was

further observed that the petitioner did not produce his sale deed, which created doubt over the claim of the petitioner. The aforesaid pre-emption case

filed by the petitioner was dismissed holding that he failed to produce any document to show that he had any land adjacent to the said land. The

petitioner had produced the photo copy of the sale deed dated 24th April, 2006 before the respondent no.2, whereby he claimed to have purchased

part of plot no.2822, however, on perusal of the boundary of the said land, as mentioned in the sale deed, the appellate authority (the respondent no.2)

found that in the eastern portion of the said plot, there was a piece of land belonging to Anarul Haque and in the western portion of the plot of the

petitioner there was a piece of land which belonged to vendor- Mohammad Ali, which made it clear that the plot of the appellant did not fall adjacent

to the said land. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a map before the revisional authority i.e., the Member Board of Revenue, showing his claim, however,

the said map was not accepted since the veracity of the same was not appropriately proved. The revisional authority also went through the finding of

the respondent no.2 as well as the materials produced before him and dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner.

It would, thus, be evident that the courts below while rejecting the claim of the petitioner have given concurrent findings of facts. It is settled

proposition of law that concurrent findings given by the fact finding courts cannot be interfered unless the same are perverse.

In the case of Panna Devi Vs. Ram Prasad Pandey (dead) by L.Rs and Others reported in (2000) 10 SCC 15 9the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

held as under:-

From the facts enumerated hereinabove, the High Court, in our opinion, erred in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 and in upsetting the

judgment of the lower appellate court. Firstly, the High Court ignored the fact that there had been non-compliance with the provisions of Order 21

Rule 90 sub-rule (2) which required the applicant to deposit twelve-and-a-half per cent of the bid money before the application for setting aside the

sale could be entertained. The executing court in its order dated 2-7- 1977 has clearly stated that this amount was not deposited. Learned counsel for

the respondent is unable to satisfy us from any document on record that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 90 sub-rule (2) had been complied with and

the money deposited. On this ground alone the objections merited dismissal. Furthermore, when the trial court as well as the lower appellate court

having come to the conclusion that the sale bid was accepted by the Amin on 18-4-1972, there was no justification for the High Court to have

interfered with this concurrent finding. The report of the Amin clearly shows that the bid was closed with the appellant having given the highest offer

of 8200 rupees. The use of the words ""ba ummeed manzoori"" in this context can mean nothing more than the fact that the sale was subject to

confirmation by the Court which would be relatable to Order 21 Rule 92. The High Court in our opinion was, therefore, in error in allowing the writ

petition.

In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Lakshmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd. & Others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 509 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

held as under:-

The order passed by the District Consolidation Director/Collector, Hardoi also concurred with the view taken by the officers below and held that

there was no evidence on record to show that the subject land was ever held or occupied for agricultural purposes or that any agricultural activity was

ever carried out on the same. These concurrent findings of fact, in our opinion, could not have been reversed by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.

The High Court obviously failed to appreciate that it was not sitting in appeal over the findings recorded by the authorities below. It could not

reappraise the material and hold that the land was held or occupied for cultivation and substitute its own finding for that of the authorities. Inasmuch as

the High Court did so, it committed an error. It is noteworthy that the revenue record clearly belied the assertion of the respondent Company and

described the land as ""parti kadim tilla"" which meant that the land has not been cultivated for a long time and is in the form of a hillock.

Since the petitioner failed to prove that he was the adjacent raiyat of the said land, his claim was rightly rejected by the courts below. If the

petitioner was claiming right of pre-emption, it was his duty to adduce sufficient materials to satisfy the ingredient for allowing the claim of pre-

emption. The appellate authority as well as the revisional authority rejected the claim of the petitioner after taking into consideration the sale deed of

the petitioner as well as Nur Nehar Khatoon, wife of Abdul Basir. There is no such perversity in the concurrent finding of facts given by the courts

below warranting interference by this court under extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.