Hira Lal Mahato vs State Of Jharkhand

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

The instant Writ Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 19.12.2006 (Annexure-4) passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Revision No.35/ 2006 affirming the order(s) passed in L.C. Appeal No.58 /2003 and L.C. Case No.6 of 2003-04.

Petitioner claims to be co-sharer of the adjacent raiyat on the basis of right of pre-emption under Section 16(3)(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 which was made with respect to 58 decimals of land appertaining to Plot No.52 under Khata No.19, Mouza Bhikrajpur within Baliapur Police Station which was sold by original Respondent No.7 [Smt. Annadbala Dasi] to Respondent Nos.5 and 6 vide Sale Deed Nos.1108 and 1109 executed on 19.02.2003.

The right or pre-emption was denied by the Land Reforms Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, vide order dated 28.10.2003 (Annexure-2) inter-alia on the following grounds :-

(i) That he was neither co-sharer nor the adjoining /adjacent raiyat of the said land.

(ii) Further, the said land was disposed of, by two sale-deeds, but the petitioner has challenged it as right of pre-emption only with respect to one sale-deed i.e. Sale Deed No.1108 for 58 decimals of land.

(iii) No claim has been made with respect to Sale Deed No.1109 by which 20 decimals of land was purchased.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly the petitioner was not the co-sharer of Respondent No.7 [Smt. Annadbala Dasi]. However, he had adjoining raiyat and, therefore, had a right of pre-emption in terms of Section 16(3)(1) of the said Act. The only fact that he had not challenged the sale deed No.1109 of 20 decimals of land cannot be a ground to deny the physical status of contiguity of the petitioner’s land to that of the vendor.

It is further argued that as per the schedule of the land filed by the petitioner in L.C. Case No.6 of 2003-04, the land of the petitioner was on the western adjoining boundary of 58 decimals of land in Plot No.52. However, the court below erroneously held that on the western side of the boundary, there was land of one Arjun Manjhi against whom Title Suit No.245 of 2001 was filed by the petitioner and the same was dismissed.

It is argued in this regard that the said suit was not dismissed, rather it was decreed in favour of the applicant/ petitioner which has been referred to in the order passed by the revisional authority. The said suit was dismissed not at that time, but was decreed in the year 2012.

Learned counsel for the private respondents has defended the impugned order. She has advanced two folds argument; firstly the said provision will apply only in case of agricultural land and not when the land is not agricultural in nature. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector (LRDC) had conducted an inquiry with regard to the nature of land and in its report has stated that the land was under boundary wall and there were petrol pump and hotel under the said plot. Therefore, the very nature of land did not permit a pre-emptory right.

It is further argued that there are concurrent findings of three Revenue Courts that the petitioner was not the co-sharer or adjoining raiyat. The argument in the present case does not raise any question of law for interference.

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides and on perusing the entire materials on record, it is evident that there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the revenue courts that the petitioner is not the co-sharer or adjoining raiyat of the land for which the claim of pre-emption has been made. Pre-emption otherwise is also a very weak right and by its subsequent amendment the said provision under Section 16(3) of the said Act has been deleted.

While sitting in Writ Jurisdiction, this Court cannot enter into the finding of facts which have been concurrently recorded by the revenue courts below. There are no equities in favour of the pre-emptor whose sole object is to obstruct a valid transaction. The Court of learned LRDC has noted that the land was in an area bounded and butted by the land of one Usuf Tale Ali, Sk. Mohan and on the western side of one Abhimanu Manjhi. Even if it is accepted that post litem, the applicant wins said Title Suit against said Abhimanu Manjhi, he will not be deemed to be an adjoining raiyat of the said land when the sale deed was executed.

As such, there is no infirmity in the impugned order which calls for any interference by this Writ Court.

The instant Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.