IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.6242 OF 2002 MAHESH CHOUDHARY, SON OF LAT EMAHABIR CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLGE MASUDANPUR, POLICE STATION NATHNAGAR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR ……………………………………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BHAGALPUR 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, SADAR, BHAGALPUR 5. DHARMENDRA MANI RAJESH, SON OF MANI KANT JHA 6. SHAILENDRA MANI RAJESH, SON OF MANI KANT JHA 7. JITENDRA MANI RAJESH, SON OF MANI KANT JHA 8. MANISH BHARTI JHA, DAUGHTER OF MANI KANT JHA 9. SMT. ANITA DEVI, WIFE OF BINOD RAJAK ALL RESIDENT OF MASUDANPUR, POLICE STATION NATHNAGAR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR ………………………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS *********** FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. S. K. MAZUMDAR, SR. ADVOCATE MS. MALLIKA MAZUMDAR, ADVOCATE MR. BINOD KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 5 TO 8:- MR. RANJAN KUMAR JHA, ADVOCATE MR. THAKUR MAINISH MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MS. KUMARI AMRITA, S.C. (CEILING) I ************** 3 26/07/2010 Heard the parties. This application has been filed challenging the orders of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, the Collector and the Additional Member, Board of Revenue. All the three Courts have come to a conclusion that the respondents 5 to 8 are the boundary raiyats of the land sold in favour of the petitioner. The case is that plot no. 74 measures 3 bighas. 2 After the death of Sarju Dhobi, his widow Sukhani Devi and his sons, Binod Rajak and Shankar Rajak inherited the lands in question. Sukhani Devi, the one third owner of the land, gifted 10 kathas of land by a registered deed of gift to the wife of one of her sons i.e. Anita Devi, wife of Binod Rajak on 09.05.1997. Respondents 5 to 8 purchased the share of Shankar Rajak on 01.04.1998 and later on, also purchased the remaining share allocated to Sukhani Devi by a registered deed dated 06.10.1999. The respondents have annexed a map which is at page 59 of this application, which indicates that respondents 5 to 8 are boundary raiyats of the lands in question. Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents based their case on the fact that the deed of gift shows that on the west side, Shankar Rajak and Binod Rajak have their share on the land gifted to them. According to the respondents, the name of Sukhani Devi would have been on the west side if the lands were fallen in her share. The case of the petitioner, on the other hand, is that the two sons and the widow took the property in one block which stands to reasons and is acceptable proposition, if one would see the map referred to above. Sukhani Devi and Shankar Rajak have filed no objection 3 in this case and have not supported the case of the petitioner and disputed the facts that Sukhani Devi was given the share on the west side rather south of plot no. 74. I, thus, find that merely because the deed of gift mentions that Binod Rajak and Shankar Rajak are on the west side would not infact defeat the rights of the petitioners to file a preemption application in view of the fact that Sukhani Devi, the person who has gifted the property to Anita Devi, her daughter-in-law, has not disputed the fact that she has a share on the south of plot no. 74. For the reasons stated aforesaid, I find that there is no anomaly in the order of the courts below. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )