IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.7417 OF 2004 BASISTHA NARAIN SINGH @ BHAGAT LAL SINGH, SON OF LATE BIYASH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAHDULLAHPUR SATAN, POLICE STATION GANGA BRIDGE, HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, OLD SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COLLECTOR, VAISHALI 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 5. MOSMAT SUNITA DEVI @ CHINTA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE UMA SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH 6. RAMESH KUMAR, MINOR SON OF LATE UMA SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH UNDER THE MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF MOSMAT SUNITA DEVI @ CHINTA DEVI, 5 AND 6 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAHDULLAHPUR SATAN, POLICE STATION GANGA BRIDGE, HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI 7. MUKESH KUMAR, SON OF GODHAN PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAHDULLAHPUR SATAN, POLICE STATION GANGA BRIDGE, HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI WITH CWJC NO. 7509 OF 2004 BASISTHA NARAIN SINGH @ BHAGAT LAL SINGH, SON OF LATE BIYASH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAHDULLAHPUR SATAN, POLICE STATION GANGA BRIDGE, HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, OLD SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COLLECTOR, VAISHALI 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 5. MOSMAT SUNITA DEVI @ CHINTA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE UMA SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH 6. RAMESH KUMAR, MINOR SON OF LATE UMA SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH UNDER THE MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF MOSMAT SUNITA DEVI @ CHINTA DEVI, 5 AND 6 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAHDULLAHPUR SATAN, POLICE STATION GANGA BRIDGE, HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI 7. HIRDAY PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMDHIYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAHDULLAHPUR SATAN, POLICE STATION GANGA BRIDGE, HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI ********* FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. C. M. CHAURASIA, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MS. KUMARI AMRITA, S.C.(CEILING) I MR. MRITUNJAY KUMAR, AC TO SC (C) I FOR RESP. NO. 7. :- MR. NARESH CHANDRA VERMA, ADV. MR. LAXMI KANT TIWARY, ADV. 2 3 22/11/2010 The petitioner is a pre-emptor. By two sale deeds, the respondent no. 5, the minor son of respondent no. 6, transferred the lands in question to respondent no. 7 for a valuable consideration. The aforesaid two sale deeds have the area of 22 decimals each. The co-sharer i.e. the petitioner filed an application under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1861 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟), which was dismissed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, the Collector and the Additional Member, Board of Revenue. The case of the petitioner is that the disputed plot no. 24 has a total area of 5.8 acres. It is the case of the petitioner that the lands belong to one Gyas Singh. Gyas Singh had three sons, namely, Dwarika Singh, Mahendra Singh and Basistha Singh. Dwarika Singh had two sons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Uma Singh. The vendors are the wife and the son of Uma Singh. The pre-emptor is Basistha Singh, uncle of the vendor. The petitioner claims that Dwarika Singh was allotted about 93 decimals of lands on the extreme eastern side of plot no. 24, whereas Basistha Singh was allotted lands in the middle and the share of Mahendra Singh fell in the western side of the plot in question. As such, it is claimed that the petitioner is on the western side of the lands of 3 Dwarika Singh, which has been sold. The case of the respondents is that after the death of Uma Singh, there was a partition between Lal Bahadur Singh and the vendor of respondents 5 and 6. Respondents 5 and 6 sold 44 decimals of land out of the total 93 decimals of lands to respondent no. 7. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on two grounds. It is firstly submitted that the sale deed showing Mahendra Singh on the western boundary of the disputed land has been done in connivance with the respondents to circumvent the provisions of Section 16 (3) of the Act. It is further submitted that Annexure-3 and 4, the two mortgage deeds would indicate that the lands allotted to the petitioner was on the western side of the lands allotted to Dwarika Singh. It is further submitted that the Courts below have wrongly believed the statement of respondent no. 7 that the lands in question are homestead lands, which is contrary to the description of the lands mentioned in the sale deeds, in which it is described as “gharari” lands. Respondent no. 7, on the other hand, submits that it is only the oral statement and a stand taken after the filing of the pre-emption application that the petitioner or for that matter, the vendor of the petitioner is claiming that the petitioner was allotted the 4 lands on the eastern side of Dwarika Singh, as opposed to the registered document, which is the sale deeds showing Mahendra Singh on the western side of the dispute land. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent that the vendor did not take any steps to get the boundary of the lands corrected by filing an application before the Registrar/the Sub-Registrar. The registered sale deeds would obviously have precedence over any other document. The fact that the vendor did not take any steps to get it corrected is rather surprising, in view of the fact that it would mean that the sale deeds are defective documents. I find, after perusing all three orders, that the mortgage deeds have not been discussed by any of the Courts whatsoever, whereas it is apparent that the documents produced on behalf of the pre-emptor have been perused by the authorities which have been discussed and referred to in the order sheets. In view of the pleadings of both the parties, the facts that emerge are that all the three authorities have relied on the registered sale deeds which shows that Mahendra Singh is in the boundary of the disputed land, the authorities have also taken into consideration the fact that the application filed by the vendor is in reply to the show cause and had been filed by the vendor. It is 5 submitted that the show cause is an after though and it appears that the vendor has been pressurized by the pre- emptor who is closely related to her to change her stand. All the three authorities have passed orders in favour of respondent no. 7, rejecting the claim of the pre-emptor. This Court also finds that in case, if the vendor/pre- emptor had disputed the sale deeds, he/she ought to have filed an application for getting a spot verification made, in order to determine the factual aspects with respect to the boundary of the disputed lands. In any event, in view of the concurrent findings of the three Courts, this Court is not inclined to entertain these two writ application. Accordingly, these two writ applications are dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )