IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1969 of 2006 BASUDEO PAL, SON OF LATE JAGDEO PAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE REDIA, P.O. AND P.S. BAROON, DISTRICT AURANGABAD (BIHAR) …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD(BIHAR) 4. LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD(BIHAR) 5. JPENDRA PAL, SON OF JAGDISH PAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAURIYA, P.O. AND POLICE STATION AURANGABAD (BIHAR) …RESPODNENTS WITH CWJC No. 2506 of 2006 BASUDEO PAL SON OF LATE JAGDEO PAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE REDIA, P.O. AND P.S. BAROON, DISTRICT AURANGABAD (BIHAR) …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ADDITIONAL MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD, DISTRICT AURANGABAD(BIHAR) 4. LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR AURANGABAD(BIHAR) 5. MANMATI DEVI W/O JAGDISH PAL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAURIYA P.O. AND P.S. AURANGABAD(BIHAR) …RESPONDENTS WITH CWJC No. 2664 of 2006 BASUDEO PAL SON OF LATE JAGDEO PAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE REDIA, P.O. AND P.S. BAROON, DISTRICT AURANGABAD (BIHAR) …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ADDITIOANL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD(BIHAR) 4. LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD(BIHAR) 5. MANMATIA DEVI, WIFE OF JAGDISH PAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-CHAURIYA, P.O. + P.S. AURANGABAD(BIHAR) …RESPODNENTS ------- For the petitioner :Mr.Dhrub Narayan, Sr. Advocate :Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh :Mr. Abhishek & 2 :Mr. Prabhat Kumar Deepak For respondent :Mr. Hemendra Pd. Singh & :Mr.Anil Kr. Singh For the State :Mr. Rajeev Kr. Singh, G.P.15 :Mrs. Sunita Kumari, A.C. to G.P.15 ----------- 04. 13.05.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. These three writ petitions have been listed analogously. Petitioners in all the applications are same person being pre-emptor. Vendor of the subject land is the same. In one case, the purchaser is the son, whereas in two other cases his mother is the purchaser. For all these reasons, the three revision applications preferred by the respondents-purchasers were heard and disposed of by a common resolution dated 29.11.2005 passaging the filing of three writ petitions. Thus, with the consent of the parties, all the three applications have been heard together. Orders present shall govern them. Petitioners in all the three writ petitions are the pre- emptor. The sustainability of common resolution dated 29.11.2005 passed in Case Nos. 45/05, 46/05 and 47/05(Upendra Pal vs. Basudeo Pal & Ors.) has been challenged. Background facts leading to the present batch of writ applications are as follows:- By reason of three sale deeds, respondent no.5 and his mother purchased 43 ½ decimals, 34 ½ decimals and 27 ¾ decimals of lands appertaining to khata no.23, plot no.70, khata no.23, plot no.99 and khata no.24, plot no.84 situate in village Redia in the district of Aurangabad. Writ petitioner(pre-emptor) 3 claiming himself to be adjoining raiyat as well as co-sharer of the vended land filed three proceedings giving rise to L.C. Case Nos. 7/2003-04, 8/2003-04 and 11/2003-04. The purchaser(s) appeared in those proceedings and resisted the claim, amongst other, on the ground that the purchaser(s) was/were landless. The respondent-D.C.L.R. by a proceeding dated 24.01.2004 (Annexure-1) allowed the claim raised by the writ petitioners (pre-emptors) under section 16(3) of the Land Ceiling Act (for short „the Act‟). Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, three appeals were filed by the purchaser(s) being Appeal Nos.109, 111 and 112/2004-05. On a consideration of the matter,the appellate authority by separate order dated 23.11.2004, dismissed those appeals. Aggrieved over the aforesaid order(s), dismissing the appeal(s) the purchaser(s) (mother and son) filed three revisions before the respondent Board of Revenue vide Case Nos.45, 46 and 47. All the three revisions were heard and allowed by common resolution dated 29.11.2005, whereby the purchaser(s) were held to be landless having less than one acre of land and relying on the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Nathuni Singh Yadav since reported in 1997(2) PLJR 287(DB) 287, non suited the pre-emptor(petitioner). Feeling aggrieved by the said resolution the pre-emptor (petitioner) has filed the present writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order submits that claim of the purchaser(s) of being landless was considered by the two courts below and finding 4 adverse to their claim was recorded. Respondent revisional court erred in interfering with those findings to hold that purchaser(s) was/were landless and, as such, the ratio laid down in Nathuni Singh Yadav(supra) shall be applicable. Learned counsel for the respondents-purhcaser(s), on the other hand, drawing attention of the court to the relevant findings of the revisional court, submits that the original authority as well as the appellate authority erred in accepting the submission of the pre-emptor(s) that the grand father/grand mother of the purchaser Upendra Pal has close to nine acres of land. It is submitted that the documents presented in support thereof did not refer to the inter se relationship between Ram Bilash Bhagat, son of Shiv Ratan Bhagat and Devwarti Devi, wife of Ram Bilash Bhagat as grand father and grand mother respectively of respondent no.5. The document filed on behalf of purchaser(s), on the other hand, conclusively indicates that the purchaser(s)(mother and son) who were living with their father and paternal grand father respectively owned marginal piece of land and were thus landless. Relevant consideration made in the impugned resolution reads as under:- “As against this, from the record it appears that the pre-emptor, Basudeo Pal filed an application before the Anchal Adhikari at Aurangabad for grant of a certiricate that Ram Bilash son of Shiv Ratan Byhagat and Devwarti Devi wife of Ram Bilash Bhagat hold 15 Bighas of land and he required a certificate to that effect and accordingly with reference to the demand register it was reported by the Karamchari on 23.1.2004 that Ram Bilash Bhagat and Devwarti Devi aforenamed hold 9.29 ¾ acres of lands and accordingly 5 certificate was granted. The original copy of the certificate is there with the record of original case no.7 of 2003 and photocopies thereof on the records of remaining two cases from which it is apparent that the certificate granted by Anchal Adhikari, Aurangabad dated 23-1-04 does not relate to any of the petitioners (purchasers) but relying on this certificate concerning the land of Ram Bilash Bhagat and Devwarti Devi the purchasers-petitioners were treated as not landless, which is not correct. It is expected from the original authority that he should have looked into the contents of the certificate for finding out whether it concerns any of the petitioner or not. Also looked into the decision of the Hon‟ble High Court in 1997(2) PLJR 287(DB) weherein it has been held by the Hon‟ble High Court at Patna that no claim of pre-emption lies against the landless person.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate with reference to the materials on record that certificate produced on their behalf related to the purchaser(s) and that they had land(s) in their names which would negate their claim of being landless. On a consideration of materials available on record and after hearing both the parties, this Court, therefore, is not inclined to interfere with the said findings recorded by the revisional court whereby the purchaser(s) has/have been held to be landless and thus relying on the ratio laid in Nathuni Singh Yadav(supra), the claim of pre-emption was disallowed. All the three applications are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )