IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3039 of 2004 DEEPAK KUMAR SHARMA, SON OF SOBHA SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAJGAWAN, P.O. DEOBAHUWARA, VIA-NAGAR, P.S. MARHAURA, DISTRICT SARAN. ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SARAN AT CHAPRA 4. D.C.L.R., MARHAURA, DISTRICT SARAN 5. RAMPARO DEVI, WIFE OF SHRI RAMESHWAR MISHRA @ SUKHAL MISHRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAJGAWAN, P.O. DEOBAHUWARA, VIA NAGAR, P.S. MARHAURA, DISTRICT SARAN. 6. JANAK SAH, SON OF LATE SAKHI SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAJGAWAN, P.O. DEOBAHUWARA, VIA- NAGAR, P.S. MARHAURA, DISTRICT SARAN 7. CHANDESHWAR SHARMA, SON OF LATE BAIDYANATH SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAJGAWAN, P.O. DEOBAHUWARA, VIA- NAGAR, P.S. MARHAURA, DISTRICT SARAN. ------ RESPONDENTS ----------- 5 20.9.2010 The only question in this writ application is whether the sale deed executed on 21.5.1999 by respondent no. 5 in favour of respondent no. 6 is a valid sale deed? The petitioner who is the pre-emptor has claimed that he is a boundary raiyat and co-sharer and therefore, entitled to file an application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act for reconveyance of the land sold by respondent no. 5 in his favour. The D.C.L.R. found that since the entire consideration money had not been paid, the title had not passed to the vendee respondent no. 6 and as such the application 2 under pre-emption was not maintainable. Aggrieved with the order of the D.C.L.R., the petitioner filed appeal before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector by order dated 13.4.2002 came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a boundary raiyat and a co-sharer and as such allowed the application. Regarding the plea of the vendor and the vendee that in fact the vendee was not able to pay the consideration amount, no title passed to the vendee, the Additional Collector held that he had no jurisdiction to decide such an issue. The respondents filed revision before the Additional Member, Board of Revenue which was allowed in their favour upholding the findings of the D.C.L.R. In order to prima facie show that a sale deed has been duly registered which is essential to consider the recitals of the sale deed, the sale deed has been annexed to the writ application as Annexure-4. On perusal of the recitals, it would appear that there is a clear stipulation in the sale deed that the title of the land will pass on receipt of the entire consideration 3 money, the land holder respondent no. 5 in acknowledgment of receiving the consideration amount was to handover the Chirkut to the vendee. It has been specifically asserted that in fact the Chirkut is in possession of the vendor, who had not received even half of the consideration amount as a result of which it cannot be said that the title of the land passed to the vendee. In order for an application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act to succeed, the pre-emptor has to prima facie show and prove that there was a valid sale deed executed and registered in favour of the vendee by the vendor. Obviously, in this case, the title had not passed to the vendee and as such the pre-emption application would fail on this ground alone. In the result, I see no illegality in the order dated 30.11.2003, passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue in Board Case No. 95 of 2002. This writ application is dismissed. Sanjay/A.F.R. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)