IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.17433 OF 2010 RENU DEVI @RENU DWIVEDI, WIFE OF SACHIDANAND DWIVEDI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAWADA, POLICE STATION DAUDNAGAR, DISTRICT VAISHALI VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 3. THE LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, HAJIPUR 4. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 5. SMT. GAYATRI DEVI, WIFE OF GIRIJA NAND DUBEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAWADA, POST OFFICE DAUDNAGAR, DISTRICT VAISHALI 6. SHRI BRIJ NANDAN DUBEY, SON OF LATE RAM RAROHAR DUEBY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAWADA, POST OFFICE DAUDNAGAR, DISTRICT VAISHALI ……………………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS ******** FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. SANTOSH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. GAJENDRA NATH OJHA, AC TO GA 2 ************ 3 02/11/2010 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is the pre-emptor claiming that he is the boundary raiyat and therefore, has a right of pre-emption under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1962 . The facts are that the lands in question were purchased by respondent no. 5 vide a sale deed, registered and executed on 26.09.2000. The pre-emption application was filed on 16.07.2001, after a delay of about nine months. The reason for the delay, according to the petitioner, is that the petitioner lives in Kolkata, and therefore, could not learn about the sale deed executed in favour of respondent no. 5. It is submitted 2 that when she came to her home town from Kolkata, she came to know that the lands in question have been sold. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below i.e. the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, the Collector and the Additional Member, Board of Revenue had erred in law in rejecting the pre-emption application on the ground that it was filed after the delay. Learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to a decision rendered in the case of Krishna Kumar Choudhary vs. Alliance Agro Industries (P) Limited and Others (1991 (1) PLJR SC 03), wherein it has been held that the Deputy Collector Land Reforms may condone the delay in filing an appeal and as such the Supreme Court has remanded the SLP to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms. Even if the plea of the petitioner is accepted, this Court finds that the explanation given for the delay in filing the pre-emption application, is not acceptable. If the petitioner has her agricultural lands in the boundary of the vended land, it is expected that somebody or the other would be caring and cultivating the lands in question. It is not her case that the agricultural lands, which lie in the boundary of the petitioner’s lands were left uncared for and was parti lands and as such she could not know about the execution of the sale deed and 3 the possession of respondent-purchaser. Although the latter plea would defeat the very purpose of the legislation, which is to prevent fragmentation of agricultural land. If a person is not cultivating his lands, the question of asking for pre-emption on the ground that such a person is a boundary raiyat, would not satisfy the purpose of enacting Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1962. I, therefore, find in the facts of this case that the reasons for filing the pre-emption application after a delay of nine months is not justified, and the Courts below have rightly rejected the pre-emption application. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find that there is no merit in this writ application and it is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )