CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.8953 OF 1989 With CIVIL WRIT JURIDICTION CASE No.10035 OF 1989 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of Indian. --------- SANT LAL BHAGAT S/O CHAMRU BHAGAT R/O VILLAGE- NIJHARA BIBIPUR, P.S.& p.o. SIGORI ( PALIGANJ) PATNA--------- ------PETITIONER ( in CWJC No. 8953 of 1989) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS DANAPUR 5. VISHUNDEO SINGH S/O LATE BULAKI SINGH R/O VILLAGE- NIGHARA BIBIPUR PS. PLAIGANJ (SIGORI) DISTT- PATNA --- PRE-EMPTOR RESPONDENT-PETITIONERS--- RESPONDENT 1ST SET 6. DEO NANDAN BAGAT S/O SHIV BALAK BHAGAT R/O VILLAGE NIJHARA BIBIPUR PS SIGORI (PALIGANJ) DISTT0 PATNA—RESPONDENT 2ND SET. (in CWJC No. 8953 of 1989) ---------- PARWATI DEVI W/O SHRI SANT LAL BHAGAT, R/O VILLAGE- NIJHARA BIBIPUR PO & PS- SIGORI (PALIGANJ),DISTT.- PATNA---- PEPTITIONER (IN CWJC NO. 10035 OF 1989) VERSUS Respondents are the same as in CWJC No. 8953 of 1989 ---------- For The Petitioner : Mr. Ashok kumar Keshri, advocate & Mr. AMBIKA BHAGAT, Advocate(in both the cases) For The Respondent :Mr. D. Choudhary, JC to SC III ( in both the cases) ---------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ********* A.K.Tripathi,J. Petitioners want quashing of annexures 4 and 6 of the present writ applications by virtue of which right of pre- emption claimed by them was initially rejected by learned DCLR vide order contained in annexure-4, though in appeal the petitioners succeeded before the Collector. But vide annexure-6 in exercise of power of revision learned Member Board of Revenue has set aside the appellate order upholding the decision of learned DCLR. Respondent no.5 Vishundeo Singh filed a petition under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of 2 Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the Act) with regard to two sale deeds which were executed in favour of one Chamru Bhagat (now deceased) and Smt. Parwati Devi who is daughter- in- law of the original petitioner, Chamru Bhagat in CWJC No.8953 of 1989. Claim of respondent no.5 that he was the adjoining raiyats of the vended plot was found to be in order. Learned DCLR further recorded that both Chamru Bhagat and Parwati Devi were not boundary raiyats of the land in question, based on the evidence which has emerged in the proceeding. In that view of the matter the pre-emption application in favour of respondent no.5 was allowed. On appeal learned Collector interfered with the order of learned DCLR by holding that some portion of plot nos. 596 and 590 touched with each other and therefore the order of pre-emption application passed in favour of respondent no.5 was set aside. The matter travelled to the Member Board of Revenue and the Member Board of Revenue disposed of both the Revision Case Nos. 54/89 and 55/89 by a common order because of commonality of the issue and the fact. Though the Member Board of Revenue was exercising power of revision but it seems that for larger interest of justice he has gone into every facet of dispute including the facts and evidence which had come in two proceedings. On perusal of the order of learned Collector he categorically held that the order in appeal could not be sustained as plot no. 596 did not adjoin the northern block of plot no. 590 which had been purchased by Chamru Bhagat. In so far as the southern block of plot no. 590 which was purchased by Smt. Parwati Devi it was held that plot no. 596 does touch the southern block of plot no. 590 but that does not belong to Parwati Devi and effort was made by filing an affidavit by one Ram Ishwar Bhagat stating that the petitioner was a co-sharer. But then the above fact 3 had not been believed in view of the fact that even in the sale deeds respondent no.5 was shown to be a boundary raiyat which was a clinching evidence in this regard, though effort was made to change the boundary of the vended land by bringing up a deed of rectification but this was obviously done to defeat the claim of pre-emption filed on behalf of respondent no.5 in both the cases. The Court has gone through the impugned orders specially the order of Member Board of Revenue and the Court does not find any legal infirmity in the decision rendered in the matter. In this view of the matter both the writ applications have no merit and the same are dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 13th January, 2009 NAFR (RPS)