IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11759 of 2007 Sofi Rai Son of late Sukha Rai resident of Village Murra P.O. Tarwar P.S. Amnour Dist Saran Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Additional Member Board of Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Additional Collector, Saran, Chapra 4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Marhaurah, Saran 5.Krishna Thakur son of late Nemi Thakur resident of Village Murra P.O. Tarwar P.S. Amnour Dist Saran 6. Sheo Prasad Rai @ Sipahi Rai resident of Village Murra P.O. Tarwar P.S. Amnour Dist Saran ----------- 2 19.02.2009 Heard Mr Chitragupta Prasad for the petitioner, and Mr Rajnish Kant Assistant counsel to learned Standing Counsel no. 3 (Ceiling). Learned counsel for the petitioner presses I.A. no.2240 of 2008, which is in the nature of a substitution application, wherein it is stated that respondent no.6 died during the pendency of the present proceedings i.e. on 28.1.2008. His heirs are mentioned in paragraph 2 of this application. Learned Standing counsel has no objection to the same. In that view of the matter, let name of respondent no.6 be expunged and be substituted by his heirs mentioned in paragraph 2 of this application. I.A. no. 2240 of 2008 is accordingly disposed of. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.9.2006(Anenxure 8), passed by the Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, whereby he has rejected the petitioner’s application in terms of section 32 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land )Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act’), on the ground of limitation. - 2 - The petitioner had purchased land from respondent no.5. Respondent no.6 filed an application under section 16(3) of the Act claiming pre-emption with respect to the vended plot, the same was allowed by the order dated 31.3.2003 (Anenxure 5), passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Marhaurah, Saran, in Land Ceiling Case no.10/2002-03 (Shiv Prasad Rai vs Sofi Rai) . The petitioner’s appeal was rejected by order dated 20.10.2005 (Annexure 6) passed by the learned Collector, Saran ,Chapra, in Land Ceiling case no.14/2003 (Sofi Rai vs.Shiv Prasad Rai & others) . Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner preferred revision application in terms of section 32 of the Act which has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground of delay. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Board of Revenue has taken hyper-technical view in rejecting the revision application on the ground of delay, but the same was not enormous and ought to have been condoned. He next submits that the court should make every effort to dispose of the matter on merits rather than by such an order so as to avoid the task of writing a full length order. He also submits that the learned first authority and the learned appellate authority have not properly considered the petitioner’s case that it was homestead and, therefore, beyond the purview of the Act. Learned Government Counsel has supported the impugned order. We have perused the material on record and considered the - 3 - submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner’s case is that the land in question is homestead and, therefore, beyond the purview of the Act. The pre-emptor case is that he is an adjoining raiyat. After taking into account materials on record including the two local inspection reports, the learned first authority came to the conclusion that the purchaser is neither a co-sharer nor adjoining raiyat. On the other hand, the pre-emptor is an adjoining raiyat. He has, therefore, concluded that the pre-emptor has been able to establish his claim for pre-emption. In so far as the petitioner’s grievance is concerned that the learned first authority did not consider his case properly. It appears to me that the local inspection reports stated that crops were growing on the land in question. Further more, learned Government Counsel is right in his submission that the petitioner made an unholy attempt to change the nature, character and user of the land in question during the pendency of the proceedings. The following observations in the order of the learned first authority is relevant which is quoted herein below: "vkosnd us fnukad 14-11-02 dks ,d vkosnu&i=k nsdj crk;k fd fooknh tehu dh izo`fr fo0 la0 1 cny jgs gSaA ftlij jksd yxk;h tk;A fooknh tehu dh izd`fr ugha cnyus dk vkns'k bl U;k;ky; }kjk fn;k x;kA" He has rightly relied on the judgment of this court that such attempt to change the nature, character and user of the land in question during the pendency of the proceeding can not be countenanced by the court. The following portion of the judgment of this Court in Hem Narayan Yadav vs. The State of Bihar & Ors (2008) 2 PLJR 432 is - 4 - relevant in the present context: “It is thus evident that, after the writ petitioner found the vended plot threatened by the claim of pre- emption, he took steps to convert it into a homestead and made hurried arrangements for the same for presentation during the course of local inspection but unfortunately failed to impress the authorities. We feel unhappy that the writ petitioner made an unholy attempt to interfere with the judicial process and to deflect the course of justice.” The learned appellate authority also considered the matter in detail and has upheld the findings recorded by the learned first authority. In that view of the matter, I do not find it possible to accede to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The findings appear to have been recorded after full consideration of the materials on record. Rejection of the revision application on the ground of limitation deserves serious consideration. It is evident from a perusal of the impugned order that the petitioner submitted a medical certificate by an incompetent doctor. It is further stated therein that the medical certificate seeks to explain only part of the period, and that too after expiry of the period of limitation. In view of thorough discussion of the issues on facts by the learned first authority and by the learned appellate authority, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served by remitting the matter back to the learned revisional authority. In the result, I do not find any merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. shahid (S.K. Katriar, J) - 5 -