IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4484 of 2003 1. SATYA NARAIN RAI SON OF LATE BALDEO RAI, R/O VILL-NARAR (EAST) P.S. KHAJAULI, DIST. MADHUBANI. 2. UMESH PRASAD RAI SON OF SRI LAXMI RAI, R/O VILL. LAXMIPUR, P.S. KHAJAULI, DIST. MADHUBANI ---PURCHASERS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, MADHUBANI 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, MADHUBANI DIST. MADHUBANI ---- RESPONDENTS IST SET 5. RAJA RAM SAH SON OF LATE DINA SAH R/O VILL. NARAR(EAST). P.S. KHAJAULI, DIST. MADHUBANI 6. DEWAN SAH @ DEO KUMAR SAH SON OF LATE GUDAR SAH, R/O VILL-NARAR (EAST), P.S. KHAJAULI, DIST. MADHUBANI. --- PRE-EMPTORS/ RESPONDENTS/SECOND SET. For the petitioners : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 05 25.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. In spite of filing vakalatnama nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.6 (pre-emptor). Petitioners are purchaser of two plots by two sale deeds registered on 04.07.2000 each in respect of 05 kathas and 05 dhurs of land appertaining to khata no. 335, khesra no. 3617, situated in mouza Narar in the District of Madhubani. They are aggrieved by the revisional order dated 15.02.2003 (Annexure-1) as also the appellate order dated 18.09.2001(Annexure-2) passed by respondent Additional Collector . By these two orders, the claim of pre-emption raised on behalf of the respondent no.5 was allowed/upheld. Background facts leading to the present writ application in a nut shell are as under:- 2 Respondent no. 7 executed 02 sale-deeds on 04.07.2000 each in respect of 05 kathas and 05 dhurs of land in favour of petitioner no.1. Respondent no.6, claiming himself adjoining raiyat of the two vended plots filed two applications before the respondent D.C.L.R. under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms ( Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 ( for short the „Act‟). It is to be noted here that on 27.07.2000 respondent no.7 (vendor) cancelled the aforesaid sale deeds by executing and registering deeds of cancellation on 01.07.2000. Such cancellation was made on the ground that consideration amount was not fully paid. It appears that the vendor (respondent no.7) thereafter again transferred part of the aforesaid land in favour of the petitioner no.2 on 07.02.2001. It is to be noted here that claim was raised in respect of first sale effected on 04.07.2000 by two sale deeds. The respondent D.C.L.R. by order dated 29.11.2000 (Annexure-3) dismissed those applications filed on behalf of respondent no.6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent no.6( pre-emptor) preferred appeal being appeal no. 73 of 2000. Respondent Collector by order dated 18.09.2001 (Annexure-2) allowed the appeal wherein it was found and held that the subsequent execution and registration of deed of cancellation on 27.07.2000 was a sham transaction. Aggrieved over the aforesaid order, both the writ petitioners filed two revision applications being Rev. no. 51 of 2001 ( Umesh Prasad Roy Vr. State of Bihar and ors) and 52 of 2001 (Satya Narayan Roy vs. Raja Ram Sah & Ors.) The 3 respondent Board of Revenue by a common resolution dated 15.02.2003 dismissed both the revision applications on the ground that the question as to the title passed on registration of two sale deeds is matter for consideration by a Court of competent civil jurisdiction. Petitioners aggrieved by the aforesaid resolution has filed the present writ petition. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the private respondents. Learned counsel appearing in support of the application made only one submission that the claim of pre-emption raised on behalf of respondent no. 6 being a weak right shall stand defeated in view of the fact that admittedly two sale deeds were executed on 04.07.2000 and the purchaser himself became adjoining raiyat to each of the plots. Referring to the appellate order it is submitted that the total area of khata no. 335, khesra no. 3617 being 10 kathas and 10 dhurs the vended plots/lands were therefore admittedly adjacent to each other. It is submitted that the writ petitioner(s) is /are not only the purchaser of the land but also adjoining raiyat(s) to each of the vended plots and as such the claim of pre-emption cannot succeed .He relies on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in the Case of Ram Roop Yadav vs. The State of Bihar and ors. 1987 PLJR 455. Learned counsel for the State has simply supported the impugned orders. From the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and on perusal of materials on record, this much is 4 evident that two sale deeds were executed on 04.07.2000 each in respect of 05 kathas and 05 dhurs of land appertaining to khata no. 335, khesra no. 3617. It further appears that the two vended plots are adjoining to each other as total area of the said plot has been vended by 02 sale deeds. This factum can be inferred from the order of the appellate authority (Annexure-2). A Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with the aforesaid situation in Ram Roop Yadav (supra). After considering the submissions it was held as under in para-4 of the report: “4. In the instant case, the two sale deeds having been executed in respect of plot Nos. 18 and 22 in favour of the petitioner, after the registration of two deeds the petitioner became holder of two adjoining plots. In this background, when two applications for pre-emption were filed by two separate sets of pre-emptors in respect of two plots transferred, the petitioner can legitimately resist the claim in both the applications that he himself is a holder of the adjoining plot. In other words, the petitioner in application for pre-emption in respect of plot No. 18 filed by respondent Nos. 5 to 7 of C.W.J.C. No. 1939 of 1980 can take a defence that he is the holder of adjoining Plot No. 22, as such application for pre-emption should not be allowed. Same plea is available to him in the other application for pre-emption in respect of Plot no. 22 filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 of C.W.J.C. No.1940 of 1980 that he himself is the holder of adjoining plot No. 18. Perhaps, the matter would have been different if same person or same set of persons had filed the two applications for pre-emption claiming to be adjoining raiyats of both the plots purchased by the petitioner.” . It is further seen from the said judgment that the 5 submission of the pre-emptor that designedly 02 sale deeds were got executed to defeat the lawful claim of the pre-emption was negated on the ground that pre-emption is a weak right and can be defeated by any bonafide means. In view of the ratio laid down in Ram Roop Yadav (Supra), this Court is of the view that petitioner(s) has been able to make out a case for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ direction(s) in the matter. Accordingly the application is allowed. Resolution dated 15.02.2003, passed by respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue (Annexure-1) as also the order dated 18.09.2001 passed by respondent Additional Collector (Annexure-2) is/are quashed and set aside. The order dated 29.11.2000 (Annexure-3) passed by respondent D.C.L.R. is hereby restored. There shall be no order as to costs. Sym/ ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)