IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15173 of 2004 MOTI LAL RAI S/O LATE KESHWAR RAI, R/O VILLAGE KHARAJ HAKIMABAD, PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-JITWARPUR CHAUTH, P.S.-SAMASTIPUR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. ………..Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SAMASTIPUR. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, SAMASTIPUR. 4. MAHABIR RAI S/O LATE REGHUNANDAN RAI, R/O VILLAGE- KHARAJ, HAKIMABAD, P.O.-KHARAJ JITWARPUR, P.S. AND DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 5. RAJESHWAR RAI S/O LATE SHEONANDAN RAI, R/O VILLAGE KHARAJ HAKIMABAD, P.O.-KHARAJ JITWARPUR, P.S. AND DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. …………….Respondents ----------- 05 28.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the private respondents as well as the State. 2. This matter arises out of a proceeding initiated under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Petitioner is the purchaser of a piece of land measuring an area of 23 decimals appertaining to R.S. Khata No. 114, R.S. Plot Nos. 1372 and 1373, situated in Village-Hakimabad, P.S.-Samastipur in the District of Samastipur. He is aggrieved by order dated 22.11.1997 passed by respondent-Deputy Collector Land Reforms (Annexure-3) and the order dated 1.3.2000 passed in Appeal by the respondent Additional Collector (Annexure-4) as well as the resolution dated 22.1.2004 passed by 2 respondent-Additional Member, Board of Revenue in Case No. 77 of 2000 (Annexure-5). All the three Courts have found and held that the pre-emptor (respondent-4) held and possessed lands adjoining to the vended land(s). Having regard to these facts appearing from the records, respondent- Deputy Collector Land Reforms by order dated 22.11.1997 allowed the claim of pre-emption. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed appeal which was considered and rejected by order dated 1.3.2000 (Annexure-4). Petitioner, thereafter, invoked the revisional jurisdiction by filing revision No. 77 of 2000. Respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue by resolution dated 22.01.2004 dismissed the said revision application leading to the present writ case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order submits that prior to the present sale, the father of the petitioner, namely, Keshwar Rai had purchased 06 Kathas and 6 Dhurs of lands appertaining to New Khesra No. 1375 and 1376, measuring an area of 27 decimals against which an application for pre-emption was filed by the present pre-emptor but the said application was rejected by order dated 4.7.80 (Annexure-2). It is, thus, contended that the present pre-emption application should have been also 3 rejected by the authorities. It is the stand of the petitioner that by reason of the aforesaid sale effected in favour of father of the petitioner, the present petitioner also became co-sharer in respect of the lands covered by the present sale deed executed on 16.01.78. 4. Learned counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, submits that the aforesaid pre-emption application was not decided on merit. Referring to Annexure 2, it is submitted that since the pre-emptor did not pursue the matter and, as such, the application stood rejected. 5. So far as next submission of the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that from Annexure 1, it does not appear that the father of the petitioner purchased any interest in the land in question. Annexure-1 indicates that a particular piece of lands was purchased by the father of the petitioner. Therefore, the father of writ petitioner cannot be said to be co-sharer of the vendor of the writ petitioner. Present sale deed reflects pre-emptor as boundary raiyat in respect of the vended plots. It is next contended that there is/are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the three courts below that the pre-emptor is the adjoining/boundary raiyat in respect of the vended land(s) 4 and, as such, the said issue is concluded by findings of fact affirmed by all the three courts and the same has become unimpeachable considering the scope of the writ jurisdiction. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. From Annexure-1, it does not appear that the father of the petitioner had purchased any specified interest in the plot/land vesting him with the status of a co-sharer in respect of the entire land. It appears therefrom that father of the petitioner had purchased 23 decimals of land from one Subhan Mian, whereas in the present sale deed executed on 16.1.78 the vendor is one Keshwar Rai. In that view of the matter, submission of the counsel for the respondents appears to be correct that the petitioner by reason of aforesaid sale deed effected in favour of his father can not be said to be co- sharer of the lands in question. 7. This Court finds from the three orders passed by the authorities under the Act, particularly by respondent- Additional Member, Board of Revenue (Annexure-5) that based on materials produced by the parties including the sketch map of the land in question, it has been found and held that the respondent no. 4 has land which is adjacent or 5 adjoining to the land in question. It has also been found, as a fact, that the sale deed in question also reflects the aforesaid status of the pre-emptor. 8. In view of these findings recorded by the three courts below and also discussions made above, in my view, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court. The application is dismissed. Safik (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)