IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.466 of 2011 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 6806 of 1991 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No. 2122 of 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.466 of 2011 ==================================================== Shri Parmanand Prasad, S/o Late Banwari Lal Sah @ Banwari Lal Bhagat, resident of Mohalla Babuaganj, Khagaria, Town, P.S. and District Khagaria. …. …. Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Patna. 2. The Collector, Khagaria. 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Khagaria. 4. Smt. Meena Devi, Wife of Shri Surendra Prasad, resident of Mohalla Babuaganj, Khagaria, Town, P.S. and Dsitrict-Khagaria. 5. Mossamat Indira Devi, W/o Late Laxami Shanker Prasad 6. Shri Rajnish Kumar (Minor) 7. Mamta Devi (Minor) 8. Guria Kumari (Minor) 9. Chhoti Kumari (Minor) No. 6 is minor son and no. 7 to 9 are minor daughters of late Laxami Shankar Prasad, Minors under the guardianship of Mossamat Indira Devi, their mother, natural Guardian and next friend. All No.5 to 9 are resident of Mohalla Babuaganj, Khagaria, Town, P.S. and District Khagaria. …. …. Respondents-Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Jagdish Prasad Bhagat, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to AAG-1 ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 23.3.2011. The delay of 75 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 9th November 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 6806 of 1991 the writ - 2 - petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The matter at dispute relates to a piece of land Thana No.254, Tauji No.534, Jamabandi No.34, Khata No.1, Khesra No.12M admeasuring 3 bighas and 10 kathas situated at Mauja Bhadas Badh Babhana Saroh, Pargana Faradiya, District Khagaria. In the year 1985 the said piece of land was sold by its original owner to the respondent no.4 Smt. Meena Devi. The appellant claimed that he is the owner of the land bearing khesra Nos. 5M and 6M adjacent to the disputed land of Khesra No.12M and that he had a right of preemption. His claim was rejected by the authorities below on the grounds that if the appellant’s rights were accepted his holding would be in excess of the ceiling area and that he was not the owner of the adjacent piece of land. A canal passes on the boundary of the land Khesra No.12M separating it from the other lands including the land Khesra Nos.5M and 6M owned by the appellant. His challenge to the orders of the authorities below in above C.W.J.C. No. 6806 of 1991 has failed before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that his land Khesra No.5M and 6M do not have a common boundary with the land Khesra No.12M. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Jagdish Prasad Bhagat has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that out of the holding of the appellant equal to the ceiling area, a large piece of land was acquired for construction of the canal. The land Khesra No.5M - 3 - admeasuring seven decimals owned by the appellant is contiguous to the land Khesra No.12M. Reliance is placed on the revenue map Annexure-6 to the writ petition. On perusal of the revenue map it appears that the land Khesra No.12M is a long piece of land. The canal in question runs on two sides of the said land separating it from the other lands Khesra Nos.5, 6, 7 etc. The land Khesra No.5M has on the eastern side a common boundary with the northern part of the land Khesra No.12M. It is, however, not established that the piece of land sold to the respondent no.4 was contiguous to the land Khesra No.5M. In our view, the learned single Judge has rightly held that the appellant has failed to establish that his land was contiguous to the piece of land sold to the respondent no.4. Besides, the land was sold in the year 1985. We do not propose to disturb the possession of the respondent no.4 more than 25 years after the land was sold to her. For the aforesaid reason, the Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)