IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15062 of 2005 Ishwar chand Singh Son of Shri Yamuna Singh, R/o vill- Nasariganj, P.O. Zinna, Dist-Rohtas --- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Member of Revenue Board, Patna, Bihar 3. The District Magistrate, Rohtas. 4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bikramganj. 5. Birijnandan Ram son of Late Bachu Ram, R/o Vill. Zinna, P.O. Zinna, Dist. Rohtas. --Respondents. ----------- 04 28.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, private respondent and the State. Petitioner raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 08.02.2005 (Annexure-6) passed by respondent Member Board of Revenue, Patna in Ceiling Revision no. 256 of 2001 whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner stood rejected. The appellate order was affirmed. A sale deed was registered on 30.07.1997 (Annexure-1) in respect of 15 ½ decimals appertaining to khata no. 114 plot no. 94/801. Respondent no.5 claiming himself to be the adjoining raiyat of the vended plot lodged a proceeding under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 ( for short the Act) which gave rise to Land Ceiling Case no. 06 of 1998-99. On hearing the parties, the claim of pre-emption was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order writ petitioner preferred appeal no. 13 of 1999-2000. By a proceeding dated 12.07.2000, the same was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the respondent D.C.L.R. for passing 2 fresh order after making local inspection of the land. The respondent D.C.L.R. thereafter made local inspection and on a consideration of the entire materials including the facts revealed in course of local inspection by a proceeding dated 08.03.2001 (Annexure-4) concluded that the pre-emptor was the adjoining raiyat of the vended land whereas the writ petitioner was not adjoining raiyat/co-sharer of the vended land. The right of pre- emption was thus allowed. Aggrieved by the said order petitioner preferred appeal which was dismissed by order dated 22.10.2001 (Annexure-5). Aggrieved over the said order writ petitioner approached the revisional Court by filing case no. 256 of 2001. Both sides were heard at length and the revisional Court by resolution dated 08.02.2005, dismissed the same leading to filing of the application at the instance of the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order(s) submits that the appellate order was passed without affording opportunity to the appellant/petitioner. It is next submitted that in the sale deed (Annexure-1) the uncle of the petitioner has been shown as adjoining raiyat on the Southern side and as such the claim of pre-emption was fit to be rejected. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submits that from the sale deed itself it would appear that pre-emptor is adjoining raiyat of the vended plot. Local inspection, in terms of the order of the appellate Court, was made wherefrom the aforesaid fact also manifested. The claim of purchaser being co-sharer of the land lying adjacent South of the 3 vended plot was negated based on the materials produced on behalf of the purchaser. It is submitted that the said findings has been upheld by the appellate Court as well as the revisional Court. In the submission of the counsel no case for invocation of writ jurisdiction has been made out for setting aside the concurrent findings recorded by the three Courts below. I have considered the submissions and perused the materials on record. The stand of the petitioner is that he is also co-sharer of the plot no. 98 which is shown to be adjoining South to the vended plot. The sale deed (Annexure-1) reflects that the subject plot belonged to one Godhan Singh. The claim of the petitioner that he too is co-sharer of plot no. 98 was considered at great length by respondent D.C.L.R. and negated. The appellate Court affirmed the said findings by dismissing the appeal. The revisional Court in paragraph nos. 3 and 4 held as under:- 3. It appears from record that admittedly the pre-emptor is the adjoining raiyat of the land in question, and the main contention of the petitioner in order to diminish the pre-emption right of the pre- emptor is that he also owns the land adjoining to the land in question as plot no. 98 which is situated on the Southern boundary of the land and recorded in R.S. Khatiyan in the name of all the brothers of his father Yamuna Singh. But the authorities below have dismissed the aforesaid claim of the petitioner mainly on the ground that in the Southern boundary of the land in question name of the petitioner’s uncle Godhan Singh is written as given in the sale deed instead of petitioner or his father’s name. The said sale deed is petitioner’s own document and it is supposed to be treated as his admission, and as the petitioner admitted the partial partition with his uncles the presumption of 4 jointness among them does not arise. Further there is no evidence to prove jointness among them. 4. It is well settled that once a partition partial as to property is proved or admitted the presumption is that all property was partitioned or denided ( vide Hindu law by S.V. Gupta p. 398 item (3) alongwith decisions noted therein). In that view of the matter it appears that as the petitioner failed to prove the jointness with respect to the aforesaid plot after having admitted partition with respect to other family property his claim of adjoining raiyat does not stand. Further, the authorities below have rightly come to the conclusion that had there been jointness in the family of the petitioner the name of the father of the petitioner would have been written in place of Godhan Singh in the Southern boundary given in the aforesaid sale deed or at least ‘Others’ would have been written alongwith the name of said Godhan Singh”. This Court, on a consideration of the submissions and after going through the materials on record, is not satisfied that a case for invocation of its extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction has been made out to set aside those findings recorded by the Courts below. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)