IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12657 of 2010 1. SATTAN SINGH S/O DOMI SINGH R/O MAUZA- POKHARBHINDA, P.S.- SAKATPUR, DISTT.- DARBHANGA ………………….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA DIVISIONAL, DARBHANGA 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, LAND CEILING, SADAR, DARBHANGA 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORM, SADAR, DARBHANGA 5. LAXMAN SINGH S/O RAMDHARI SINGH R/O MAUZA- POKHARBHINDA, P.S.- SAKATPUR, DISTT.- DARBHANGA 6. MOSTT. PHOOL MAYA DEVI W/O LATE RAM GULAM SINGH R/O MAUZA- POKHARBHINDA, P.S.- SAKATPUR, DISTT.- DARBHANGA………………Respondents ----------- 4 01.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State. Petitioner is the pre-emptor. He is aggrieved by order dated 01.06.2010, passed on Revision No. 14 of 2008-09, whereby the revision application preferred by him has been rejected affirming the findings recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court. Respondent no. 5 claims to have purchased the land(s) in question measuring a total area of one Katha, ten dhurs from respondent no 6. Such purchase was made on 22.11.2006. Petitioner led a claim in terms of Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms and Fixation of land Acquisition Surplus land 1961 (for short “the Act”), based on certain lands having been purchased by the petitioner from before which, according to him, was/were adjacent to the vended land(s). Respondent-Deputy Collector Land Reforms 2 Sadar Darbhanga, on a consideration of the materials placed before him came to the conclusion that the applicant-petitioner was having land adjoining to the vended land and accordingly allowed the claim of pre- emption by a proceeding dated 18.05.2007, passed in Ceiling Case No. 5/2007-08. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the purchaser respondent no. 5 filed an appeal being area ceiling Appeal No. 2 of 2007-08. The respondent appellate court before passing the order impugned on the request of the respondent no. 5, got physical/on spot inspection made whereafter on a consideration of materials brought on record, the same was allowed and the order passed by Deputy Collector, Land Reforms was set aside. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner preferred revision being LCR 14 of 2008/09 which was heard and rejected (Annexure-3). Both, the appellate authority as well as the Revisional Authority held that small tract of land purchased by respondent no. 5 was homestead land and as such provisions of the ceiling Act would not be applicable thereto. They have further found that the pre-emptor was also having residential premise on the land adjoining to the vended land. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the land in question is found to be homestead, the 3 same would be covered by the provisions contained under the Act in view of the definition of land occurring in Section 2(F). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that there is consistent view of this Court that if the nature of the land has changed and has become land capable of being used for residential purpose, the provisions of the Ceiling Act would not be applicable. Learned standing counsel placed before this Court portion of the appellate order wherein relevant case law has been cited and relied upon. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. There is concurrent finding of fact that the small tract of land purchased by respondent no. 5 was for the purpose of construction of residence. It is the finding of the appellate authority as well as revisional authority that the nature of land has changed from what was described in the relevant Khatiyan. It has also been found that the pre-emptor had also residential houses on the adjoining portion of the land claimed by him. This is what the revisional authority observed in the order:- ** vihykFkhZ ds vuqjks/k ij rFkk U;k;fgr es eSus fnukad 11&04&2008 dks jktLo dehZ mHk; i{kks dh mifLFkfr rFkk xzkeh.kks ds le{k LFky fujh{k.k fd;kA LFky fujh{k.k es ik;k fd 4 iz”uxr Hkwfe iks[kj fHkUMk xzke ds chp es vofLFkr iw.kZr% vkoklh; Hkwfe gSA iz”uxr Hkwfe ds Bhd lVs mRrj izfroknh lru flag ,oa muds iq= dk iDdk edku e; lgu gSA nf{k.k fn”kk es eq[; lM+d vofLFkr gSA iwohZ fdukjs Jh NksVw flag dk [kiM+Sy dk vkoklh; edku rFkk lkaln ,SfPNd dks’k ls fufeZr iDdk dk cSBdk gSA** Learned revisional authority once again examined the records of the case and concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Authority. Pre- emption is a weak right. It may be defeated on showing that the lands in question have changed its nature and use. From the materials on record, this court finds that residential houses have come up on the surroundings of the vended land. The small area of plot conveyed under the impugned sale deed is also suggestive/indicative of the aforesaid fact. Having regard to these findings recorded by the two authorities that the lands in question have changed its nature and have become a residential land/plot, this Court is not inclined to invoke its writ jurisdiction. The application is dismissed. Amrendra ( K.K. Mandal)