IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10152 of 2005 BRAHMDEO SINGH S/O LATE CHHOTELAL SINGH R/O VILL- BARSANDA, P.O.GOURAVDIH, P.S. SANGRAMPUR, DIST. MUNGER ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. SATISH PRASAD SINGH S/O BIRANCHI SINGH R/O VILL. BARSANDA P.O.GOURAVDIH P.S. SANGRAMPUR DIST. MUNGER --- RESPONDENT 1ST PARTY 2. SUDHIR SINGH 3. LALAN KUMAR SINGH NO. 2 AND 3 SONS OF LATE LATE BAGESHWAR SINGH 4. MAULESHWARI SINGH 5 SHIVENDRA SINGH NO. 4 AND 5 SONS OF LATE MAHA PRATAP SINGH ALL R/O VILL. GOURAVDIH, P.O. GOURAVDIH, P.S. SANGRAMPUR, DIST. MUNGER --- RESPONDENT 2ND PARTY 6. THE LAND REFORM DEPTY COLLECTOR, HAVELI KHARAGPUR DIST. MUNGER 7. THE COLLECTOR, MUNGER 8. THE BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA THROUGH ITS MEMBER. 9. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY LAND REFORM DEPT. PATNA, BIHAR ---RESPONDENTS 3RD PARTY. For the petitioner : Mr. Ray Shivaji Nath, Sr. Advocate For the respondent no.1 : Mr. Abdul Mannan Khan, Advocate For the State : Kumari Amrita, G.P.10 & Mirtunjay Kumar, A.C. to G.P.10 ----------- 03 18.04.2011 Writ petitioner is purchaser. He is raising a grievance with respect to common order dated 17.02.2005 (Annexure-6), passed by respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar in revision case nos. 79 of 2002, 80 of 2002, 81 of 2002 and 82 of 2002 whereby the revision applications preferred by the petitioner was considered and rejected. Background facts in a nut shell are as follows:- On 18.09.1992, respondent nos. 2 to 5 executed and registered 03 sale deeds appertaining to khata no. 8, khesra no. 2 128, situated in Mouza Barsanda in the District of Munger, in favour of the writ petitioner. Following day i.e. on 19.09.1992 another sale deed was registered in favour of the writ petitioner by respondent nos. 2 to 5 in respect of part of khata no. 8, khesra no. 128. Respondent no.1 instituted 04 proceedings under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) giving rise to L.C. case nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 of 1992-93. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms by a common order dated 23.02.1994 (Annexure-1) rejected the claim of pre-emption raised on behalf of respondent no.1. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent no.1 (pre-emptor) filed appeal before the Collector. The said appeal was allowed by a proceeding dated 19.11.1996 (Annexure-2). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed a revision applications before the respondent Board of Revenue which was allowed by order dated 03.07.2000 (Annexure-3) whereby the case was remitted back to the Collector for fresh consideration and disposal. It appears a local inspection report was called for which was submitted by the Circle Officer on 30.11.2001 (Annexure-4). The respondent Collector by order dated 26.03.2002 (Annexure-5) allowed the appeal. In other words, the original order passed by respondent D.C.L.R. was set aside and the claim of pre-emption made on behalf of respondent no.1 was allowed. Aggrieved over the said appellate order the writ petitioner preferred aforesaid four revisions applications before the respondent Board of Revenue. By a common resolution dated 3 17.02.2005 (Annexure-6), the same have been rejected leading to filing of the present writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent no.1 and learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader no. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the revisional order, submits that the petitioner purchased the lands appertaining to khata no. 8 khesra no. 128 measuring a total area of 02 bighas, 02 kathas and 13 dhurs by 04 sale deeds. All the deeds were registered before institution of proceeding under Section 16(3) of the Act. By reason of those sale deeds the purchaser himself become adjoining raiyat(s) to the vended plots and as such the claim of pre-emption raised on behalf of respondent no.1 would fail. It is submitted that this issue was argued before the respondent revisional Court but no finding much less satisfactory finding has been recorded thereon. He relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Roop Yadav vs. State of Bihar since reported in 1987 PLJR 455 = 1987 BLJ 557 ( para 6) and Nathuni Mahto vs. State of Bihar & Ors ( 2004(2) PLJR 334) (D.B.). Learned counsel for respondent no.1, on the other hand, supported the impugned resolution. It is contended that the Courts below have rightly taken the view that the claim of pre-emption raised on behalf of respondent no.1 can be entertained and allowed as all the sales were impugned. It appears from perusal of the revisional order that the said issue was raised before the said Court as would appear from ground no.1 of the said order/resolution 4 which is extracted hereinbelow:- “Ground (1)- The revision petitioner has claimed that the pre-emption is a weak right. It can be got defeated by the purchaser even by purchasing another piece of the adjoining land in question which should enable him to become an adjoining raiyat who himself can claim pre-emption. The petitioner contends that having purchased four different portions of plot no.128 he himself has become an adjoining raiyat in regard to each of the portions he has purchased and has acquired the right of pre-emption. This side has stated that the pre-emption could not defeat/thwart the petitioner‟s right in this connection.” The said ground was considered in the light of provision of the Act and decided by the revisional Court in following manner:- “…. Therefore, the contention of the respondent is just and correct that pre- emption is a statutory right and authorized to its full and complete enforcement and obedience….” It is thus seen that no specific finding(s) has been recorded on the said issue. A Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with the facts which have galvanized in the present proceeding while dealing with the case of Ram Roop Yadav (Supra). The Division Bench held as under in para 5 and 6:- 5. On behalf of the pre-emptor- respondents it was urged that the petitioner had purchased two plots by two sale deeds with the purpose of defeating any application for pre-emption. It need not be pointed out that right of pre-emption is a very weak right which can be defeated by the purchaser by any legitimate means. Reference in this connection may be made to the well known case of the Supreme Court in the case of Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh (AIR 1953 Supreme Court 838) 5 where it was pointed out that the person claiming pre-emption has “to show not only that his right is as good as that of the vendee, but that it is superior to that of the vendee…. this superior right must subsist at the time the pre-emptor exercises his right”. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of R.C. Srivastava v. P. N. Singh ( 1970 B.L.J.R. 1101) reiterated the same principle in connection with section 16(3) of the Act itself, pointing out that the right of pre- emption under section 16(3) „is a very weak right, that it must subsist at the time when the pre-emptor seeks to exercise it and that it can be defeated if by that time the person against whom it is sought to be exercised has acquired a right or status which is equal to that of the pre-emptor.” 6. In view of the series of judgments of this Court, it is almost settled that before an application under section 16(3) of the Act is filed, the purchaser by purchasing an adjoining plot can himself become the holder of an adjoining plot in order to defeat the pre-emption application which is filed later. Of course different considerations will arise where purchaser tries to become a holder of an adjoining plot by making purchase of the adjoining land after filing of the application under section 16(3) of the Act. In the instant case, the petitioner has not purchased the adjoining plot on different dates but on the same day and the registration in respect of the two deeds had also been completed much before filing of the two applications under section 16(3) of the Act. As such there should not be any difficulty in holding that when the pre- emption applications were filed by two different sets of pre-emptors for reconveyance of the two plots in two cases, on that day, the petitioner himself had become the holder of adjoining plots in both the cases and he could have resisted the claim for reconveyance of either of the plots. In my view, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector rightly dismissed the application….” It is contended on behalf of respondent no.1 that the pre- 6 emptor claimed status of adjoining raiyat in respect of all the plots vended under the 04 sale deeds and as such the claim of pre- emption have rightly been allowed by the Court below. In this regard he refers to the observation made in para 4 of Ram Roop Yadav (Supra) which reads as under:- “…. Perhaps, the matter would have been different if same person or same set of persons had filed the two applications for pre-emption claiming to be adjoining raiyats of both the plots purchased by the petitioner.” It appears in Nathuni Mahto (Supra) similar submission was advanced on behalf of the pre-emptor which seems to have been accepted by learned Single Judge. Writ appeal arising therefrom was considered by a Division Bench of this Court and the said submission/view was negated relying on Ram Roop Yadav (supra). In para 7 of Nathuni Mahto (Supra) the Division Bench observed as under:- “7. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench Judgment fully covers the present case as there were two sale deeds in favour of the vendee and pre-emption was claimed with regard to both of them and then it was held that on the date the right of pre-emption was claimed the transferee has already become an adjoining raiyat by other sale deed…..” The factual position in the present case is that by reason of 04 sale deeds registered in favour of the petitioner within 02 days ( much before expiration of 90 days) became adjoining raiyat of the vended plots covered by those sale deeds in the light of ratio laid down in Ram Roop Yadav ( Supra ) and Nathuni Mahto 7 (Supra). This Court has thus no hesitation in concluding that the purchaser (writ petitioner) became adjoining raiyat of the vended plots covered by those sale deeds and as such the claim of pre- emption would fail. Incidentally, this Court may also notice that 04 sale deeds registered in favour of the purchaser have not been brought on record by the respondent no.1 to demonstrate therefrom that he is adjoining raiyat in respect of the all the plots vended under the aforesaid sale deeds. For the reasons aforesaid the application is allowed. Impugned resolution dated 17.02.2005 (Annexure-6), passed by Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar in Rev. case nos. 79 of 2002, 80 of 2002, 81 of 2002 and 82 of 2002 and order dated dated 26.03.2002, passed by Collector, Munger in Land Ceiling (Review) case no. 3 of 2000-2001 is hereby quashed and set aside. The claim of pre-emption raised on behalf of respondent no.1 fails. There shall be no order as to costs. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)