IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.546 of 2011 PRADUMANA CHARYA son of late Kanta Charya, resident of Village-Singhrahia Police Station Sahiyara, District-Sitamarhi… …Pre-emptor/Respondent/O.P./Respondent- Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Department of Land Revenue Government of Bihar, Old Secretariate, Patna, 2. The Collector, Sitamarhi, 3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sitamarhi, 4. Smt. Chandra Kala Sinha wife of Shri Ram Laxman Singh, resident of village- Singhrahia Police Station Sahiyara, District-Sitamarhi, 5. Ramanand Singh, son of Late Matukdhari Singh resident of Singhrahia P.S. Sahiyara, District- Sitamarhi, 6. Sushil Kumar Singh son of Son of Ram Laxman Singh, resident of Village-Singharahia, P.S. Sahiyara, District Sitamarhi…. ……O.P/Appellant/Petitioner/Petitioner/Respondents. For the Appellant : M/s Nirmal Kr. Sinha-3, Arun Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Ajay SC-XI. ………………………. 2 29.03.2011 I.A. No. 2412 of 2011 has been filed for condoning the delay of about 64 days in preferring this appeal. Heard the parties. On being satisfied with the reasons stated in this application due to which delay has occurred in 2 preferring this appeal, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned. Now we proceed to consider this appeal on its merit. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and State. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 24.11.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.18377 of 2009 whereby the writ application has been allowed after holding that, since the subsequent deed of gift was bona fide transaction, the pre-emption application would not succeed with respect to the lands which had been transferred by way of deed of gift before the filing of the pre-emption application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the land appertaining to Plot No. 767, Khata No. 177, situated in Village-Singharhia of Bathanaha Block in the district of Sitamarhi were transferred by one 3 Ramanand Singh in favour of Smt. Chandra Kala Sinha on 24.5.2003. However, even before registration of such documents the transferee aforesaid had executed a deed of gift in favour of her son on 9.6.2003. The appellant had filed the application under Section 16(3) of the Act claiming a right of pre-emption. It is submitted that the original as well as the appellate and revisional authorities have decided the matter in favour of the appellant holding that being a co-sharer and the boundary raiyat, he would be entitled to re-conveyance of the disputed land in his favour. The donee, namely, Sushil Kumar Singh has challenged the revisional order passed by the Board of Revenue by filing C.W.J.C. No. 18377 of 2009. Learned counsel submits that the deed of gift was executed within 15 days of the execution of the sale deed in favour of Smt. Chandra Kala Sinha only with a purpose to defeat the claim of pre-emption. Learned counsel vehemently argued that even before registration of the sale deed the aforesaid deed of gift has been executed. However, at the time of hearing he could not furnish the date of 4 registration of the sale deed. However, from perusal of revisional order, as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application, it appears that the sale deed was registered on 24.5.2003 itself. Thus, obviously the deed of gift was executed after registration of the sale deed. Learned counsel could not point out that the pre- emptor had proved before the authorities below that the subsequent deed of gift was a sham transaction. The matter has been examined in detail by the leaned Single Judge and it has been held that the execution of deed of gift by the mother in favour of the son cannot be termed as unreasonable or mala fide action. Thus, the claim of pre-emption would not succeed if the concerned property has been legitimately transferred by the purchaser before filing of such application of pre-emption. Accordingly, the writ application was allowed and the orders passed by the ceiling authorities were quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant could not point out any error in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court 5 in this intra – Court appeal. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. Spd/-Sanjay II (T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)