IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5962 of 2003 1. SITA RAM SINGH SON OF LATE NARESH SINGH 2. SMT. SUBHADRA DEVI WIFE OF SITA RAM SINGH, BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHAHPUR, P.S. BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. Versus 1. THE MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, PATNA. 2. THE COLLECTOR, BEGUSARAI. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, BEGUSARAI. 4. BIRENDRA SINGH @ BRINDEO SINGH 5. RAM NANDAN SINGH, BOTH SONS OF LATE SAHDEO SINGH 6. MANI SINGH SON OF BIJALI SINGH, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHAHPUR, P.S. BEGUSARAI, MUFFASIL, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI 7. THE STATE OF BIHAR. With CWJC No.5966 of 2003 1.SITA RAM SINGH SON OF LATE NARESH SINGH 2. SMT. SUBHADRA DEVI WIFE OF SITA RAM SINGH, BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHAHPUR, P.S. BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, PATNA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, BEGUSARAI. 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, BEGUSARAI. 5. BIRENDRA SINGH @ BRINDEO SINGH 6. RAM NANDAN SINGH, BOTH SONS OF LATE SAHDEO SINGH 7. MANI SINGH SON OF BIJALI SINGH, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHAHPUR, P.S. BEGUSARAI, MUFFASIL, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI ----------- FOR THE PETITIONERS: M/S RAJENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, REKHA PRASAD AND ROHIT KISHORE PRASAD, ADVOCATES. FOR THE STATE : M/S K.THAKUR, A.C. TO SC IV (C) AND KAMAL KISHORE SINGH, AC TO SC IV ( C ) ----------- 7/ 12-08-2009 In both writ applications, C.W.J.C. No.5962 and 5966 both of 2003, the resolution dated 21.08.2002 passed by the Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, is under challenge. Thus, the aforesaid writ petitions had been - 2 - heard together and being disposed of by common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Nobody had appeared on behalf of the private respondents despite notice, though a Vakalatnama is on record on behalf of respondent, Manish Singh, the Vendor. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the resolution dated 21.08.2002 of the Member, Board of Revenue, whereby he has set aside the appellate order passed by respondent no.2, the Collector, Begusarai in appeal. 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are as follows: Respondents no. 4 and 5 ( respondent no. 5 and 6 in CWJC NO.5966 of 2003), by two registered sale deeds executed by the Vendor, Manish Singh, purchased 9 katha 10 dhoors of land appertaining to khata no. 225, plot no. 1197. The petitioners filed two pre-emption applications under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reform ( Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land ) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) claiming to be adjoining raiyats . The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms , Begusarai ( respondent no.3) dismissed both the pre- emption applications on the ground of being time barred. Two separate appeals were preferred and both the Ceiling Appeals bearing 170 and 171, both of 1993, - 3 - were allowed by the common order dated 13.03.2001 holding that the pre-emption applications are well within time and the purchasers, thus, were directed to execute sale deed in favour of the appellants. Against the aforesaid appellate order, two revision cases bearing Case No. 108 and 109, both of 2001, were filed by respondents no. 4 and 5 which were allowed by common order dated 21.08.2002, as contained in Annexure- 6 in both the writ applications. 5. Mr. Rajendra Kishore Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the revisions were allowed on the sole ground that the purchaser was a landless person and in that view of the matter, relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of Nathuni Singh Yadav and Ors. Vrs. State of Bihar, reported in 1997 PLJR (2)- 287 the Member, Board of Revenue has held that it would be harsh on the part of the landless persons if the pre-emption is allowed. The Member, Board of Revenue had placed his reliance upon the report of the Anchal Adhikari, Begusarai which has been brought on record as Annexure-A wherein it had been stated that the purchasers are landless persons. However, the fact that the petitioners are the adjoining / boundary raiyats of the land in question, also stands accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that no such plea as taken by the respondents before revisional - 4 - authority was taken before the appellate authority and as such the appellate authority passed the order only on the basis of the fact that the petitioners happened to be the adjoining raiyat. It had also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid report of Anchal Adhikari was without proper spot verification , however, the same had not been considered by the original authority since the case was dismissed only on account of being time barred. 6. It had further been submitted that recitals Annexure-7 as well as Annexure-7A, ( agreements for sale, one executed by the mother of respondents no. 5 and 6 and second by respondent no.5 himself), sufficiently prove that the purchasers had earlier entered into contract for sale of their property . This fact completely falsifies the report of the Anchal Adhikari showing respondents no. 4 and 5 as landless persons. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State submited that the revisional court had based its finding upon the aforesaid report of the Anchal Adhikari who had opined that the land in question has been purchased by respondents no.4 and 5 for homestead. 8. However, it is admitted position that the authority, at first instance, has dismissed the pre-emption applications merely on the ground of being time barred. It - 5 - has not recorded its finding either with regard to the status of respondents no. 4 and 5 or the nature of the land or even with regard to the claim of the petitioners of being adjoining/boundary raiyats of the purchased land. Similarly, the appellate authority also had merely held that the pre-emption case was not time barred and has directed the respondents therein to execute sale deed in favour of the appellants without recording any positive finding with regard to the cases of the respective parties. The questions raised by the parties do not stand answered by the appellate court which would be manifest from the order dated 13.01.2001 itself, as contained in Annexure-5. The revisional authority ( as contained in Annexure-6 ) had also based its reliance upon the report of the Anchal Adhikari who even has gone to the extent to state in his report that the purchase was for the purpose of homestead. The Anchal Adhikari was simply required to make a spot verification and submit a report with regard to claim of being adjoining raiyat, nature of land or status of parties. The revisional order is based upon the report of the Anchal Adhikari, Begusarai finding the respondents no. 4 and 5 to be landless persons. However, two agreements for sale, Annexure- 7 and 7A executed one by the mother and another by one of the private respondents agreeing to sell their land in favour of the second party, - 6 - raises question mark upon such report of the Anchal Adhikari. 9. The private respondents, despite issuance of notice, have not appeared to contest this application. 10. Thus, upon hearing the appearing parties, I am of the opinion that none of the authorities had decided the issues involved upon proper consideration of facts as well as law. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the orders dated 15.10.1993, 13.03.2001 and 21.08.2002, passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Begusarai, the Collector, Begusarai and the Member, Board of Revenue, as contained in Annexures- 3,5 and 6, respectively, are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Begusarai to be decided afresh in accordance with law, after hearing the parties and on consideration of all the facts raised by them . 11. Accordingly, both writ applications are allowed. BTiwary/ ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J )