IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.1384 OF 2007 WITH CWJC NO.1362 OF 2007 ***** Batoran Singh, son of Late Lachhan Singh, R/o Village- Nawalia, P.O. Dighita, P.S. Kochas, (Parsathua), District- Rohtas. .... Petitioner in CWJC No.1384/07 Ramakant Singh, son of Late Sheo Pujan Singh, R/o Village- Nawalia, P.O. Dighita, P.S. Kochas (Parsathua), District- Rohtas). .... Petitioner in CWJC No.1362/07 Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3. Additional Collector, Rohtas. 4. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sasaram, Rohtas. .. Respondent 1st Set (in both cases) 5. Jokhan Singh, son of late Parikhan Singh. 6. Kamal Prasad Singh, son of Jokhan Singh. R/o Village-Nawalia, P.O. Dighita, P.S. Kochas (Parsathua), District- Rohtas. .. Respondent 2nd Set (in both cases) 7. Kameshwar Singh, Son of Bansh Narayan Singh, R/o Village- Nawalia, P.O. Dighita, P.S. Kochas (Parsathua), District- Rohtas. ... Respondent 3rd set. (in both cases) ----------- 05- 12.1.2009 Heard Mr. Subhash Chandra Yadav for the petitioners, Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned junior counsel to Standing Counsel No.2 (Ceiling) for respondent nos.1 to 4, and Mr. Dhruv Narain for Respondent nos.5 and 6. It arises out of proceedings under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), and is directed against the order dated 31.5.2006 2 (Annexure-3 in both cases), passed by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, whereby the revision applications filed by the present petitioners, being purchasers, has been rejected. The petitioners are the purchasers, and respondent nos.5 and 6 are pre- emptors. 2. The petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.1384 of 2007 had purchased 121/2 decimals of land bearing Khesra No.473, appertaining to Khata no.35, situate at Mauza- Nawaliya, District- Rohtas (Sasaram), by a registered deed of absolute sale dated 5.7.2003, from one Kameshwar Singh. The Petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.1362 of 2007 similarly purchased 61/2 decimals of the said Khesra no.473, appertaining to Khata no.35, situate at Mauza- Nawaliya, District- Rohtas (Sasaram), from one Kameshwar Singh. Respondent nos.5 and 6 filed two separate applications under section 16(3) of the Act claiming right of pre-emption. The same were rejected by a common order dated 16.12.2003 (Annexure-1 in both the writ petitions), passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sasaram, in Ceiling Case No.14 of 2003-04 (Jokhan Singh and others Vs. 3 Batoran Singh and others) and in Ceiling Case No.15 of 2003-04 (Jokhan Singh and others Vs. Ramakant Singh and others) respectively, mainly on the ground that the lands in question are homestead. Respondent nos.5 and 6 preferred appeals which were allowed by a common order dated 29.7.2005 (Annexure-2 in both the writ petitions) passed by the learned Additional Collector, Rohtas (Sasaram), in Appeal Case No.8 of 2004-06/2 of 2004 (Jokhan Singh and others Vs. Batoran Singh and others), and in Appeal Case No.9 of 2004-05/1 of 2004 (Jokhan Singh and others Vs. Ramakant Singh and others) respectively. The learned appellate authority has found that the lands in question are not homestead, are agricultural lands, and the purchasers (petitioners herein) had attempted to put up a thatched hut after commencement of the proceedings. It has further been found that, on the strength of a previous sale-deed, respondent nos.5 and 6 are adjoining raiyats with respect to the lands in question. Aggrieved by the same, the present petitioners preferred two revision applications which have been rejected by the impugned order. The 4 learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, has affirmed the findings of facts. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein are poor, landless persons, and the impugned order would act very harshly against them. He next submits that the lands in question are homestead and, therefore, beyond the purview of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for respondent nos.5 and 6 has supported the impugned order. He submits that the petitioners have not set up any case of being an adjoining raiyat or a co- sharer. On the contrary, the petitioners have been able to establish convincingly that they are adjoining raiyats. He next submits that the petitioners made an unhappy but unsuccessful attempt to interfere with the course of justice by putting up a thatched hut on the land in question after commencement of the proceedings. He relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Hem Narayan Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar and others), reported in 2008 (2) B.B.C.J. 356, paragraph-9 = 2008 (2) P.L.J.R. 432. 5 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to me that the learned appellate authority and the learned revisional authority have concurrently found that the lands in question are agricultural lands. Respondent nos.5 and 6 are, on the strength of an earlier sale deed, adjoining raiyats with respect to the land in question. It has also been found that the petitioners are neither adjoining raiyats nor co-sharers. The issues are thus concluded by findings of facts. No ground for interference has been made out. 6. The writ petitions are dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/