The provisions of Sec.16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 are not unconstitutional and the words "a co-sharer or a raiyat of adjoining land" in Sec.16 (3) of the Act refer to lands and not to khatas.

Kanhaiyaji, J.

1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Board of Revenue dated the 16th October, 1968, passed in Case No. 208 of 1968 (Annexure 6) setting aside the order of the Additional Collector, Palamau, dated the 1st July, 1968 (Annexure 4) and restoring the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Daltongani, dated the 4th April, 1967 (Annexure 3) in an application under Sec.16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act 12 of 1962), hereinafter referred to as "the Act.

2. Haricharan Pandey and Rajendra Pandey, respondents 4 and 5, by a registered sale deed dated the 2nd September, 1966, transferred 0.03 acres of plot No. 631 and 0.05 acres of Plot No. 632, both plots of Khata No. 59 of village Narsinghpur Pathra, Police Station Chainpur, District Palamau, for Rs. 2,000.00 to the petitioners. Jai Shri Pandey, respondent No. 3, filed an application under Sec.16 (3) of the Act against the petitioners and respondents 4 and 5 for the transfer of the lands to him on the terms and conditions contained in the sale deed. Jai Shri Pandey, respondent No. 3, claimed that 0.05 acres of plot No. 616 and northern portion of plot No. 616 measuring 0.15 acres belonged to him by virtue of a decision of Partition Suit No. 66 of 1949, and Plot No. 630 was acquired by him by a sale deed dated the 22nd November, 1964. These plots are adjoining the lands involved.

3. The claim of the petitioners, on the other hand, was that they were co-sharers in khata No. 59 and claimed plot No. 614 adjacent to the land involved in the case. The Subdivisional Officer found that the northern portions of plots 616 and 630 were contiguous south and west respectively of lands involved and that only a very small portion of plot No. 614 touched the southern portion of the said lands. He further held that the provisions of Sec.36 (3) of the Act were applicable not to the khatas but to the plots. In this view of his findings, he allowed the claim of Jai Shri Pandey, respondent No. 3.

4. On appeal, the Additional Collector of Palamau differed with the view taken by the Subdivisional Officer. He held that the petitioners were the co-sharers of the transferors in the khata, and plot No. 614 was on southern portion of one of the plots covered by the impugned sale deed. In this view of the matter, the Additional Collector allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer.

5. Jai Shri Pandey, respondent No. 3, filed an application under Sec.32 of the Act in the Board of Revenue, Bihar, against the decision of the Additional Collector. The case made out by Jai Shri Pandey, respondent No. 3, before the Board was that plots 614 and 736 do not stand in the names of the petitioners inasmuch as plot No. 614 was purchased jointly by Gulab Pandey and Bigan Pandey alias Gupteshwar Pandey, father of the petitioners, from one Kesho Barhi by a registered deed dated the 17th January, 1949 and that plot No. 736 was also purchased by them on the 27th March, 1950. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that as the plots stood in the name of their father jointly with Gulab Pandey, they had also acquired interest in the property. The Board held that the adjacent plots did not stand in the names of the petitioners and there was nothing to show that Bigan Pandey had directly or indirectly transferred the interest or recognised the interest of the petitioners in the two adjacent plots, and, as such, the claim of the petitioners of being adjoining raiyats-- co-sharers was rejected. The Board however, found respondent No. 3 an adjoining rai-yat/co-sharer, as he held portions of plots 613 and 616 adjoining which had been acquired by virtue of a decree in a partition suit.

6. Being aggrieved by this decision, the petitioners have filed the present application challenging the order passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, r