Yogendra Singh vs The State of Bihar and Others

Aftab Alam, J.—Heard Mr. Satish Chandra Jha, counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition arises from a pre-emption proceeding u/s 16(3) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act. The petitioner is the pre-emptor and the claim of pre-emption relates to a sale executed on 28.3.1979.

Respondent No. 5 purchased a piece of land 13 decimals in area from respondent No. 6 under a registered sale deed, dated 28.8.1979. The transferred land comprised plot No. 343, area 4 decimals, plot No.344, area 6 decimals and plot No. 347, area 3 decimals, situate at village Hasna, P.S. Gayaghat in the district of Muzaffarpur. The vendor herself lived at some distance in village Vishunpur under Aurai P.S. in the same district.

The petitioner claimed pre-emption on the ground that he was an adjoining raiyat in respect of the transferred land. The claim of pre-emption was resisted on the ground that the transferred property did not come within the meaning of ''land'' as defined u/s 2(f) and, therefore, it did not come within the purview of section 16(2) of the Act. On behalf of the purchaser it was contended that the transferred land was a homestead.

In the first round of litigation the matter was remanded by the Board of Revenue to the D.C.L.R. to find out whether the land was homestead and whether or not the vendor was a ''land-holder''. On remand the D.C.L.R. found that the land was homestead connected with agriculture and the vendor was a land holder because her husband was holding other agricultural lands.

In appeal the Addl. collector reversed the findings recorded by the D.C.L.R.

The petitioner took the matter in revision before the Board in Case No.158 of 1986. The revision was dismissed by the Addl. Member, Board of Revenue by resolution, dated 23.2.1988. The Addl. Member found and held that the disputed land was homestead. He further held that the vendor had received it from her father and it was not the property of her husband that she was holding in her name. He further found and held that the vendor admittedly did not hold any land except the transferred land in her name and the lands held by her husband were of no consequence so far as the present proceeding was concerned. The Board of Revenue appears to be fully justified in rejecting the petitioner''s revision and his claim of pre-emption. On hearing Mr. Jha and on going through the impugned order I find that the matter stands concluded by findings of fact that do not warrant any interference by this court in a writ preceding. This writ petition is dismissed.