Letters Patent Appeal No.1144 OF 2002 (Against the judgment and order dated 17.9.2002 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2544 of 2000) ************* SMT. URMILA DEVI W/O RAM CHANDRA ROY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-GOPALPUR, POST OFFICE- A KAPUR, POLICE STATION- CHERIYA BARIARPUR, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI……………………………………….Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ADDITIONL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. COLLECTOR, BEGUSARAI, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI 4. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, INCHARGE LAND REFORMS, MANJHAUL, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI 5. UPENDRA ROY, S/O LATE DASRATH ROY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GOPALPUR,POST OFFICE- AKAPUR, P.S.-CHERIYA BARIARPUR,DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI 6. SMT. SAVITRI DEVI W/O LATE PALTU ROY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GOPALPUR, P.S.-AKAPUR, P.S.- CHERIYA BARIARPUR, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI ………………………………..Respondnets. ********** For the Appellant:- Mr. Devendra Kr. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Biresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State :- Mr. R. C. Thakur, SC-(c) IV Mr. K. Thakur, JC to SC (c) IV Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, JC to SC- (c) IV ****** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA Barin Ghosh & S. K. Sharma, JJ. Heard. By a registered instrument appellant purchased a plot of land. Soon after registration - 2 - of the instrument, late Dasrath Roy, father of the respondent no. 5 filed an application under section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act seeking to exercise his right of pre-emption on the ground that he is a co-sharer and adjoining raiyat of the land so purchased by the appellant. Respondent no. 5 reported to the first authority that his father, Dasrath Roy has died during the pendency of the application and got himself substituted in place of his father. At the conclusion of the proceeding before the first authority, the contention of the appellant that Dasrath Roy died before the date of presentation of the application seeking pre-emption and accordingly, the said application was an incompetent application, was upheld. The first authority, having, thus, concluded the matter, did not go into other contentions raised by the appellant while disposing the said application for pre-emption. The appeal preferred by the respondent - 3 - no. 5 was dismissed. The revisional authority, who was approached by the respondent no. 5, however, reversed the findings of the first authority as well as of the appellate authority and held that Dasrath Roy died after the presentation of the application seeking pre-emption. At that stage, without remanding the case to the first or the appellate authority, the revisional authority rejected the other defences put forward by the appellant to the application seeking pre-emption. The challenge thrown to the order of the revisional authority in the writ petition having met with an order of dismissal, the appellant is before us. The plea taken by the appellant before the first or the appellate authority that Dasrath Roy died before the presentation of the application was brought to be proved on the basis of certificates issued by the Mukhiya and the Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. The Panchayat Secretary in the certificate purported - 4 - to hold out that he maintains record of deaths in the Gram Panchayat. Neither the provisions contained in the Constitution, nor the provisions made in Panchayat Act specifically bestow any obligation upon Panchayat to record the births and deaths of people residing within Panchayats. However, it is possible that records of births and deaths are maintained by the office of Panchayat on the request of the Registrar, Birth and Death. However, such a request was made and such records were maintained by the Panchayat did not come on the records of the case at any point of time. The conclusion would that the certificates referred to above contain opinions of persons who gave those certificates. Those were not therefore, evidence of death of the person. In the absence of evidence to justify that Dasrath Roy died before the application for pre-emption was presented, interference by the revisional authority with the orders of the first and the appellate authority - 5 - cannot be said to be unjustified. The merits of the other defences of the appellant have not been gone in details by the first authority as well as by the appellate authority. However, there is nothing on record upon which a prima facie opinion can be formed that there had been and there is still the necessity of going into the facts constituting such defence of the appellant and accordingly, the matter is to be heard de-novo right from the stage one. In the circumstances we see no justification to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) Patna High Court, Patna 22nd December, 2008 avin./N.A.F.R.