IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.411 of 2008 SUDHIR PRASAD SRIVASTAVA Versus BIRENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA &ORS ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. S. K. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate & Miss Mallika Mazumdar For the Respondents: Mr. Prem Kumar ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ghanshyam Prasad ------------ Dated, the 10th July, 2008. Two fold contention has been advanced by the Senior Counsel, namely, (i) that if the view of the D.C.L.R. was correct in holding that the sale deed dated 26.6.2000 executed by the land owner in favour of the appellant was non est being hit by section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short, ‘T.P. Act’), which has also been affirmed by the Single Judge, then the appellant could not have been asked to execute the transfer deed in favour of the applicant-co-sharer; and (ii) that two appeals (one by the vendor and the other by the vendee) were preferred from the order dated 31.8.2001 passed by the D.C.L.R. The appellate authority allowed one appeal being appeal No. 7/2004 and held that the said order shall govern the other appeal being Appeal No. 6/2000. From the orders passed in two appeals, only one revision application came to be filed by the pre-emptor and that came to be rejected by the Member, Board of Revenue on 9.12.2004. The pre-emptor then filed writ petition challenging the - 2 - order of the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority which has been allowed by the Single Judge on 18.4.2008. It is submitted that the appeal from which no revision was preferred, attained finality and could not have been the subject matter of consideration by the Single Judge in one writ petition. 2. None of the contentions appeals us. In so far as the first contention is concerned, apparently, the transfer in favour of the appellant was made on 26.6.2000 during the pendency of the proceedings under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. Since transfer is effected in favour of the appellant during the pendency of proceedings, it is apparently hit by section 52 of the T.P.Act. No error can be said to have been committed by the D.C.L.R. in asking the appellant to execute the transfer deed in favour of the pre-emptor even if the sale deed in his favour has been declared non est. 3. As regards the other contention, suffice it to say that the original proceedings were initiated on the application made by the pre-emptor under section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act. Merely because two separate appeals were filed from the order (one by the vendor and the other by the vendee) passed under section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act, that does not mean that two revision applications or two writ petitions were required to be filed. The submission of the senior counsel that from one of the appeals, revision or writ petition having not been filed, the order passed by the appellate authority became - 3 - final is wholly misconceived. The writ petition before the Single Judge was continuation of the proceeding under section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act and the order passed by the Single Judge is relatable to that proceeding. 4. We, thus, find no merit in this L.P.A. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Ghanshyam Prasad, J AMIN/-