IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.34 of 2003 with CWJC No.78 of 2003 with CWJC No.566 of 2003 ----------- 1. Sita Ram Singh, 2. Shiv Nandan Singh @ Shiv Nandan Prasad, 3. Nathun Prasad, 4. Kedar Prasad, all sons of Late Basudeo mahto, village Nizampura, PS Asthawan, District Nalanda – Petitioners in all the three writ petitions. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3. Additional Collector, Nalanda. 4. Dy. Collector, Land Reforms, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda. 5. Faizuddin 6. Afaque Ahmad, both sons of Late Makhdum Bux. 7. Sakina Khatoon, wife of Faizuddin. 8. Moh. Jamil Asghar, 9. Jamil Athar, 10. Jamil Akbar, 11. Moh. Saghir, 12. Moh. Sagir, all sons of Late Jamil Akhtar. 13. Sultana Khatoon, 14. Firoza Khatoon, 15. Yasmin, all daughters of Late Jamil Akhtar, village Mafi, PS Asthawan, District Nalanda – Respondents in all the cases. 7 2.8.2010 These cases have travelled up and down the corridors of the revenue courts, before coming to this court, for the second time. The facts are that the petitioners purchased land appertaining to plot nos. 868 and 869 (part) from Jamil Akhtar whose heirs are respondents 8 to 15. It may be stated at this stage that Jamil Akhtar had acquired the lands in question through a deed of gift. The deed of gift was challenged in a title suit which was dismissed in favour of Jamil Akhtar. Three sale deeds were executed on 7.10.1987 by Jamil Akhtar with respect to plot nos. 869 and 867. The registration was 2 complete on 11.12.1990. The preemption application was filed by the petitioners on 30.1.1991 claiming to be adjoining raiyats by virtue of the sale deed, dated 6.6.1977. The preemption application was dismissed in the year 1992 which was allowed by the appellate court vide Annexure 2. The order of the appellate court was challenged and remanded back by the Board of Revenue. Thereafter the parties filed a writ petition in this court. This court held that the order of remand by the Board of Revenue was justified and correct. By Annexure 14 the appellate court upheld the order passed by the D.C.L.R. dismissing the preemption application. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the D.C.L.R. filed a revision application before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed on 25.9.1998. In the mean time the husband of Sakina Khatoon, the vendee and the brother of the husband filed an intervention application raising a point that the sale deed executed in favour of respondent no. 7 was not a valid sale deed as the consideration amount did not pass on execution of the deed. Both the courts held that in fact the consideration money did not pass and the sale deed was a void document and as such no application for preemption would lie under section16(3) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act. The second argument made by the purchaser-respondent no.7 is that by virtue of the fact that three sale deeds were executed on the same date, the purchaser became an adjoining raiyat and had a superior claim over the preemptor. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the question 3 whether the sale deed was valid one or not, cannot be decided by the revenue authorities as this aspect of the matter can only be decided in a civil suit. It is further argued that such an issue cannot be raised on behalf of the intervenors who are neither purchaser nor have valid power of attorney to pursue the matter on behalf of respondent no.7. The submissions on behalf of the petitioners regarding the question whether the intervention application could have been allowed, the answer is in favour of the arguments made by the petitioners. However, if the question with respect to the dispute over the validity of the sale deed is raised before the revenue authorities, it would be open to them to look into it as the question of preemption has to be decided on the basis of the fact that the sale deed has been executed. It stands to reason that if no sale deed is executed, no preemption application would lie. Be that as it may, I am inclined to allow these writ petitions on the second ground, which is that by virtue of the fact that Sakina Khatoon purchased the lands in question through three sale deeds and as such became a boundary raiyat by virtue of the sale deed. She acquired better title over the other adjoining raiyats of the plots. This proposition has been upheld by a division bench judgment of this court in the case of Ram Roop Yadav vs. State of Bihar, 1987 PLJR 455, wherein the facts were that two sale deeds were executed with respect to two plots of land adjacent to each other. An application was filed under section 16(3) of the act. This court after considering several judgments has held that in view of series of judgments of this 4 court it is almost settled that if before an application under section 16(3) of the Act is filed, the purchaser who had purchased the adjoining plot can himself become the holder of the adjoining plot in order to defeat the preemption application which is filed later. The case aforesaid squarely covers the facts of the present cases. In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)