IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15661 of 2005 1. SHEODENI KOERI SON OF SRI BUDHAN KOERI 2. JAGARNATH KOERI SON OF SRI RAMDENI KOERI 3. BAIJNATH KOERI SON OF RAMDENI KOERI 4. CHABILA KOERI SON OF SRI RAM DENI KOERI ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE RUDALPUR, P.O.- RUDALPUR, P.S.- BHORE, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. …… Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, LAND REFORMS, GOVERNMETN OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, GOPALGANJ. 4. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, HATHUA, GOPALGANJ. 5. SANTOSH KUMAR, SON OF BALI RAM SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE- RAGHUNATHPUR, P.O.- RUDALPUR, P.S.- BHORE, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. 6. NAGINA RAI SON OF RAMDEO RAI, VILLAGE BHIKKACHAPAR, P.O.- RUDALPUR, P.S.- BHORE, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. …….. Respondents with CWJC No.15667 of 2005 1. SHEODENI KOERI SON OF SRI BUDHAN KOERI 2. JAGARNATH KOERI SON OF SRI RAMDENI KOERI 3. BAIJNATH KOERI SON OF RAMDENI KOERI 4. CHABILA KOERI SON OF SRI RAM DENI KOERI ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE RUDALPUR, P.O.- RUDALPUR, P.S.- BHORE, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. …. Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, LAND REFORMS, GOVERNMETN OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, GOPALGANJ. 4. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, HATHUA, GOPALGANJ. 5. SMT. KANTI DEVI, WIFE OF BALI RAM SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE- RAGHUNATHPUR, P.O.- RUDALPUR, P.S.- BHORE, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. 6. LAL BACCHA RAI, S/O- BALDEO RAI, RUDALPUR, P.O.- RUDALPUR, P.S.- BHORE, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ. …. Respondents For the petitioners : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate For the respondents : Mr.Ashutosh Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kamal Kumar (A.C. to S.C. 11). ----------- 2 6 17.05.2011 These two matters have been clubbed together as they raise common issue. Preemptor is same in both the cases. It appears that the matter(s) heard analogously at the appellate as well as revisional stage. With the consent of the parties, both the matters have, therefore, been heard together and are being disposed of by the order. 2. Facts shall be drawn from C.W.J.C. No. 15661 of 2005. 6 kathas 9 ½ dhurs of land situated in village Rudalpur in the district of Gopalganj was conveyed by respondent No. 6 in favour of respondent No. 5 registration whereof was completed on 9.3.2000. The petitioners, claiming themselves to be co-sharer(s) of the vended land/plot as well as adjoining raiyats thereof, filed petition under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (for short “ the Act”) which gave rise to Case No. 51 of 2000-01. On notice, the vendor and the vendee appeared and resisted the claim, on amongst others, on the ground that the sale was incomplete as no consideration money was paid. It was the positive stand of the both the vendor and vendee that there was no sale taking effect in the eye of law. The respondent Deputy Collector, Land Reforms by a proceeding dated 23.6.2001 (Annexure-2) allowed the claim raised by the preemptors. The vendor and the vendee, aggrieved by the aforesaid order, filed appeals before the respondent Collector. By proceeding dated 3 28.10.2004 (Annexure-3), the respondent Collector dismissed the appeal. In other words, the order of D.C.L.R. (Annexure-2) was upheld. Aggrieved over the said order, the respondent- purchaser as well as the vendee preferred two revision applications giving rise to Revision Case No. 301 of 2004 and 317 of 2004. The Revisional Court by a common resolution dated 22.9.2005 (Annexure-4) allowed the said revision application(s) passaging filing of two writ petitions before this Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent-purchaser (respondent No. 5). In spite of service of notice, the vendor (respondent No. 6) has not appeared and filed counter affidavit. 4. The Revisional Court considered in great detail the case of the parties under the heading “Discussion and Findings (point wise)” culled out in paragraph 9. It has been found as a matter of fact that as per recitals in the subject sale deed and the documents produced on behalf of the vendor and vendee, the sale of the subject lands had not taken effect in the eye of law. Relying on ratio laid down in the cases of Gujan Yadav & others versus Sita Ram Choudhary (1973 B.B.C.J. 260 (D.B.), Kamaldhari Rai versus The State of Bihar & others (1979 B.B.C.J. 179 (D.B.) and Most. Sabitri Devi versus The State of Bihar & others (1989 P.L.J.R. 772), the Revisional Court held as under: “…… In the instant case the uncontroverted 4 stand of the petitioners as well as the vendors has been that no consideration did ever pass. Therefore the sale deeds remains incomplete and there is no question of pre-emption” 5. Before this Court also, a firm stand has been taken by the purchaser (respondent No. 5) that he did not obtain title/possession of the vended land as no consideration money was paid therefor. 6. In view of the positive findings of the Revisional Court based on appraisal of materials brought on record by the parties and the stand taken by the respondent No. 5, this Court is satisfied that the said finding does not merit interference by invocation of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court should also declare the said sale inoperative as title and possession remained with the vendor. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the purchaser (respondent No. 5) has also taken the similar stand before this Court. 8. Accordingly, this Court holds that title of the vended land did not pass to the purchaser by reason of subject sale deed and thus the claim of preemption would fail. 10. The applications are dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)