IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.5451 OF 2003 RAM KUMAR THAKUR, SON OF LATE GAYA PRASAD THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PANCHOR, POLICE STATION RIGA, DISTRICT SITAMARHI VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AT PATNA 3. THE COLLECTOR, SITAMARHI 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, SADAR, SITAMARHI 5. ISHWAR DEO RAI, SON OF LATE RAM BARAN RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PANCHOR, POLICE STATION RIGA, DISTRICT SITAMARHI 6. SMT. VEENA DEVI, WIFE OF SHRI RADHEY SHYAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILALGE NARGA, POLICE STATION BELA, DISTRICT SITAMARHI 7. SMT. NIRU DEVI, WIFE OF SHRI BIRENDRA SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MURADPUR, POLICE STATION DUMRA, DISTRICT SITAMARHI 8. SMT. SADHNA DEVI, WIFE OF SHRI GANESH SHANKAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAMUA BARAHI, POLICE STATION BATHNAHA, DISTRICT SITAMARHI ……………………………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS ******** 6 06/09/2010 Heard the parties. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.12.1997 contained in Annexure-2 passed by the Collector, Sitamarhi setting aside the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sitamarhi dated 17.06.1996 allowing the pre-emption application of the petitioner. The appellate order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision application which was disposed of by the Member, Board of Revenue on 01st/10th April, 2002 in Case No. 299 of 1997. Admittedly, the petitioner is the boundary raiyat. The case has been decided in favour of the purchaser on the ground that he is a landless person and 2 the property that he had purchased from respondent no. 6 was the only property that he would own as a result of the said transaction. The fact that respondent no. 5 is the landless person, has been established by the fact that the Circle Officer has issued a certificate in favour of respondent no. 5, certifying the fact that he does not own and possess any other land except, those which he had purchased by virtue of the sale deed dated 14.07.1995. The legal position with respect to the sale deed executed in favour of a landless person is established by the Supreme Court in the case of Radhakishan Laxminarayan Toshniwal vs. Shridhar Ram Chandra Alshi (AIR 1960 Supreme Court) and various judgments of this Court as well. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show or bring on record any materials before the Court below, which would suggest that respondent no. 5 had other property besides the property which are subject matter of the present sale deed. On perusal of the order passed by the Collector and the Member, Board of Revenue, this Court finds that there is no defect in the orders and that the vendee in the present case would be entitled to retain the lands that he had purchased by virtue of sale deed dated 14.07.1995 by virtue of being a landless person, which is a good 3 ground for defeating the provisions of Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )