IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19469 of 2010 RATI KANT JHA, S/O LATE VISHNU KANT JHA, R/O VILL-SRIPUR MOUAN, PO. BANGRA, P.S. SINGHIA, DIST. SAMASTIPUR. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SAMASTIPUR 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORM (D.C.L.R.) ROSERA, SAMASTIPUR 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, SINGHIA, SAMASTIPUR 6. MANJU CHOUDHARAIN, W/O ACHCHA CHOUDHARY R/O VILL- SRIPUR MOUAN, P.O.BANGRAHATTA, P.S. SINGHIA, DIST. SAMASTIPUR. 7. ARUN KUMAR SINGH S/O INDRA NARAYAN SINGH R/O VILL- SRIPUR MOUAN, P.O. BANGRAHATTA P.S. SINGHIA, DIST. SAMASTIPUR 8. ACHCHA CHOUDHARY, HUSBAND OF MANJU CHOUDHARAIN R/O VILL. SRIPUR, MOUAN P.O. BANGRAHATTA P.S. SINGHIA, DIST. SAMASTIPUR. ---RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. R.C. Thakur, S.C. IV( c ) ----------- 02 03.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is the pre-emptor. He is assailing the three orders passed by respondent D.C.L.R., Additional Collector and Commissioner in original application, appeal and revision respectively. Respondent no.7 sold 8 katha and 18 and ½ dhurs of land appertaining to khata no. 199(New), khesra no.1045 (New)/456(old) situate in village Sripur Mouan. Such sale was effected on 24.06.2002, in favour of the respondent no.6 Manju Choudharain. Petitioner claiming himself to be the adjoining raiyat of the land in question preferred an application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar 2 Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961 (for short the „Act‟) which gave rise to ceiling case no. 39 of 2002 (Rati Kant Jha vrs. Manju Choudharain & Ors.) . Respondent D.C.L.R., on a consideration of the materials on record, found that the land claimed by the pre-emptor/petitioner to be adjoining to the vended land was bisected by a channel constructed by the State Government (State boring). It has further found that the purchaser respondent no.6 herself was having a small tract of land in her name and, therefore, was a landless lady. For recording the aforesaid finding respondent D.C.L.R. relied on the land possession certificate issued in her favour by the Circle Officer, Singhia. Accordingly the claim of pre-emption was rejected. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent Additional Collector vide Land Ceiling appeal no. 126 of 2003-04. Learned appellate authority once again considered the materials on record and relying on the judgment of this Court came to the conclusion that the claim of the pre-emptor was required to be rejected as the purchaser was a landless lady having very small tract/parcel of land to her credit. The appellate Authority also found that after construction of the channel by the State Government, the pre-emptor/petitioner cannot be treated as adjoining raiyat to the vended land/plot. It appears that the appellate Authority also placed reliance on the certificate produced on behalf of the purchaser respondent 3 no.6. Consequently the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by a proceeding dated 07.09.2006. Aggrieved over the aforesaid order dated 07.09.2006, petitioner preferred revision before the respondent Commissioner vide L.C.Revision no. 27/2008-09 (Rati Kant Jha vrs. Manju Choudharain & Ors.). Revisional Authority has noticed that the purchaser had got two sale deeds executed in her favour which made her adjoining raiyat as well. However, no finding to that effect has been recorded. Respondent Commissioner concurred with the finding recorded by the two Courts below that since the purchaser respondent no.6 herself was having a very small tract of land ( landless lady) therefore, the claim of pre-emption against her shall not survive. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order(s) submits that no enquiry was made by the authorities in relation to the claim of the purchaser being a landless lady by any of the Courts and as such the order(s) passed by the Ceiling Authorities are bad in law. Learned standing counsel (Ceiling), on the other hand, submits that claim of pre-emption being a weak right can be defeated on relying documents issued by the State authorities. It is submitted that there is concurrent finding of fact with regard to the status of the purchaser. Revisional Court has further noticed that the purchaser got executed two sale deeds in respect of the land. The claim of pre-emption thus has rightly been rejected by all the three 4 Ceiling Authorities. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record including the three impugned orders passed by the respondents. In order to get relief in a proceeding under Section 16(3) of the Act the onus heavily lies on the pre- emptor to substantiate the claim. The purchaser ( respondent no.6) brought on record a certificate issued by the Circle Officer in order to support her claim that she was having a very small tract of land to her credit, and as such, she was herself a landless lady. The pre-emptor was, therefore, required to prove the contrary by bringing on record relevant documents which he failed to do. This Court also takes notice of the submission advanced on behalf of the purchaser recorded in paragraph no.5 of the revisional order which reads as under:- “5. The learned advocate of the O Ps said that land in question has been purchased through two sale deeds. Therefore he himself becomes adjoining raiyat. There is no jamabandi in the name of OP 1. He referred to some rulings.” If that be the position then apart from the findings on which the petitioner has been non -suited, the claim of the petitioner would not be justified. Law is well settled that if the vended land is acquired by reason of two sale deeds the purchaser herself/himself would become adjoining raiyat of the vended lands. 5 For all these reasons, this Court does not find merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)