IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14376 of 2005 Krishnakant Singh @ Krishnandan Sharma son of Late Vijay Narayan Singh, R/o Vill. Kurwan, P.S. Goh, Dist. Aurangabad --- Petitioner Vrs. 1. The State of Bihar 2. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna 3. Collector, Aurangabad 4. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Daudnagar, Aurangabad 5. Srimati Savitri Devi W/o Brij Kishore Sharma. 6. Smt. Saroj Devi W/o Ram Kishore Sharma 7. Smt. Mamta Devi W/o Ramadhar Sharma. 8. Smt. Anita Devi W/o Ramashish Sharma All 5 to 8 are R/o Viil. Kurwan, P.S. Goh, Dist. Aurangabad 9. Smt. Lalita Devi W/o Ramjanam Sharma R/o Vill. Sabajpura, Post Office Jaipur, P.S. Mahandia, Dist. Arwal at present Rajeev Nagar Road No.3 Doctor Keshri Nagar, Patna 25, Dist. Patna ----Respondents. With C.W.J.C. No. 14190 of 2005 Krishnakant Singh @ Krishnandan Sharma son of Late Vijay Narayan Singh, R/o Vill. Kurwan, P.S. Goh, Dist. Aurangabad ----Petitioner Vrs. 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar Patna 3. Collector, Aurangabad 4. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Daudnagar, Aurangabad 5.(i) Brij Kishore Sharma 5(ii) Ram Kishore Sharma 5(iii) Ramadhar Sharma 5(iv) Ramashish Sharma (All son of Harshikesh Sharma and are R/o Vill. Kurwan, P.S. Goh, Dist. Aurangabad 5(v) Mithil Kumari D/o Harshikesh Sharma W/o Ram Naresh Sharma R./o vill. Jamuain P.S.Goh, dist. Aurangabad (Bihar) 6 Smt. Lalita Devi W/o Ramjanam Sharma R/o Vill. Sabajpura, Post Office Jaipur, P.S. Mahandia, Dist. Arwal at present Rajeev Nagar Road No.3 Doctor Keshri Nagar, Patna 25, Dist. Patna --- Respondents. With C.W.J.C.No. 14270 of 2005 Krishnakant Singh @ Krishnandan Sharma son of Late Vijay Narayan Singh, R/o Vill. Kurwan, P.S. Goh, Dist. Aurangabad. --- Petitioner Vrs. 1. The State of Bihar 2. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna 3. Collector, Aurangabad 4. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Daudnagar, Aurangabad 2 5. Padamnath Sharma son of Late Tapeshwar Sharma R/o vill+ P.O. Kurwan, P.S. Goh, dist. Aurangabad. 6. Smt. Lalita Devi W/o Ramjanam Sharma R/o Vill. Sabajpura, Post Office Jaipur, P.S.Mahandia, Dist. Arwal at present Rajeev Nagar Road No.3 Doctor Keshri Nagar,Patna 25,Dist. Patna For the petitioners : Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh-3 For the State respondent : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, G.P.15 ----------- 06 04.05.2011 Heard the parties. All these writ petitions raise a common issue. They are directed against a common resolution dated 05.10.2005 (Annexure-1) passed by the respondent Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar in Rev. Case nos. 203 of 2004, 204 of 2004 and 205 of 2004 negating petitioner’s claim filed under Section16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (for short the Act). Petitioner/ pre-emptor in all the three writ petitions are the same. They have thus been heard together and are being disposed of by the present order. For the sake of brevity, relevant facts shall be drawn from C.W.J.C. No.14376 of 2005. Background facts in a nutshell are as under:- Respondent no.9 vended different tracts of land appertaining to plot nos. 650, 651, 653, 654, 1021 by three sale deeds in favour of the different purchasers but belonging to the same family. In C.W.J.C. no. 14376 of 2005 the land was vended in favour of respondent nos. 5 to 8. Three proceedings under Section 16(3) of the Act were, thus, initiated claiming right of 3 pre-emption giving rise to L.C. case nos. 11, 12 and 13 of 2000- 2001. Respondent D.C.L.R. heard the matter analogously but by separate order allowed the claim of pre-emption. In the case at hand, said order was passed on 11.06.2002 contained in Annexure- 4. Different purchasers aggrieved by the order(s) allowing the claim of pre-emption preferred appeals being L.C. appeal nos. 27,28,29 of 2003-2004. All the matters were heard analogously but by separate order(s) dated 14.07.2004 (Annexure-2) the respondent Collector allowed the appeal and set aside the order(s) passed by respondent D.C.L.R. (Annexure-4). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the pre-emptor/writ petitioner filed three revision applications before the respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue, giving rise to Rev. case nos. 203, 204 and 205 of 2004. The revisional Court heard all the matters analogously and by a common resolution dated 05.10.2005 (Annexure-1) dismissed the revision passaging filing of present batch of writ petitions. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent purchasers and the State. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner(s) assailed the revisional order on the ground that having noticed that the matter required local inspection, the revisional court ought to have remanded the case back to the Court below for carrying out local inspection. It is next contended that the vendor designedly did not set out name of the pre-emptor on the adjoining boundary of the vended plots although he was holding land adjoining to the vended land. It is 4 next submitted that the vendor is daughter of Uday Narain Singh @ Ram Uday Singh who was own uncle of the pre-emptor and as such the petitioner has wrongly been not treated as co-sharer of the vended lands/plots. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/purchasers supported the order passed by revisional authority. It is contended that the revisional Court considered the matter in great detail and thereafter concurred with the findings recorded by the Additional Collector which is/are not required to be interfered with by this court invoking its writ jurisdiction. It is submitted that there was already a partition in a suit between the two sons of Late Mahabir Singh, namely, Uday Narain Singh @ Ram Uday Singh and Vijay Singh ( father of pre-emptor). The land was gifted to the vendor who was already married and as such she cannot be treated as one belonging to the family of the pre-emptor. It is submitted that in none of the three subject sale deeds the pre-emptor has been shown as adjoining raiyat of the vended plots/lands except plot no. 1021 which is only a part of vended plot(s) in one sale deed. It is submitted that both the appellate Court as well as the revisional Court have considered these aspect(s) of the matter and have recorded findings adverse to the claim of the pre-emptor. The appellate Court on a consideration of the materials placed on record in its order (Annexure-2) found as under:- “ In the instant case, the boundary of the vended land does not indicate that the respondent Krishna Kant Singh is an adjoining raiyat. It appears that total area of 5 plot no. 650 and 651 sold by vendor Smt. Lalita Devi through sale deed no. 3540 and 3539 is 70 decimals and 66 Decimals in plot no. 651 through sale deed no. 3537,. Thus, total area ( 70+66) 1.36 Acres out of 1.43 Acres has been sold by the vendor in plot no.650 and 651, as a matter of fact, the appellant and vendor Smt. Lalita Devi has still got 07 decimals land left in these plots. Hence, it is not correct to say that wrong boundary has been shown in the sale deed. Similarly, the appellant and vendor Smt. Lalita Devi has still got her land 0.6675 Acre in plot no. 653 and 654. On the other hand, the respondent Sri Krishna Kant Singh has no land touching the vended area of land in question. The respondent has failed to prove that he is a co-sharer of the appellant no.5. Smt. Lalita Devi because respondent’s father late vijay Narayan Singh and appellant no.5 father late Udai Narayan Singh separated each other in 1950 by the Court of sub- Judge, Gaya. The learned DCLR in its order dt. 11.6.2002 has mentioned that wrong boundary has been shown in the sale deeds. But, he has not inspected the land in question to prove that wrong boundary has been shown in the deeds.” The revisional Court once again addressed to the said issue by formulating question in the following manner:- “The question to be decided is whether the petitioner is a co-sharer and an adjacent raiyat of the vended lands in question or not and if he is found to be so, does he have a better right than the vendees of all the three sale deeds in question who all claim to be members of the same family and close relatives.” On a consideration of the matter the revisional Court held as under:- "On a perusal of the records it emerges that the lands sold by the vendor Lalita Devi are less in area then the lands received by her in gift and thus it is held that a portion of the vended lands still belongs to her and as such the boundary 6 given in sale deeds in question mentioning the vendor in the southern and eastern boundary of land pertaining to khata no. 106 of sale deed no. 3357 and in the sale deed no. 3539 and 3540 are correct and as a result it is held that the petitioner is not a boundary raiyat of the lands in dispute viz. plot nos. 650,651,653 and 654.” In view of the materials on record the revisional Court found and held as under:- “In view of the facts that the petitioner separated by the Court, position from the father of the vendor as far back in 1951, it is held that he cannot now claim any joint right or jointness with the successors in interest of his deceased brother. The petitioner has failed to produce any convincing and reliable evidence in support of his claim of being a boundary raiyat of the land in question and in view of the fact that the vendor still has a portion of the vended lands with her it is held that the petitioner is not a boundary raiyat of the vended lands in question except for a partition of plot no. 1021 as aforesaid. The order of the learned Collector does not suffer from any infirmity is well reasoned and does not also suffer from any materials irregularity calling for interference by this court.” Considering the materials on record, this Court is satisfied that the findings recorded by the appellate Court and duly affirmed by revisional Court do not merit interference based on pleadings on record by invocation of its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. Petitioner/pre-emptor is admittedly not shown as boundary raiyat in the subject sale deeds. There is concurrent findings at least by the appellate Court and the revisional Court that the vendor was left with land after vending plots in question in 7 favour of different purchasers. The right of pre-emption being a weak right, the petitioner has to demonstrate a foolproof case which he has failed to do so. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly, dismissed. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)