Back
1973 Supreme(Pat) 16
PATNA HIGH COURT
N.L.Untwalia and S.Sarwar Ali JJ.
Ram Prasad Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 894 of 1970 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 22, 1973
One application can be filed for pre-emption in respect of two sale deeds executed on the same day transferring different plots of land, provided that the consideration money for each plot is separately mentioned.
Headnote:
LAND REFORMS - Pre-emption - Maintainability of single application for multiple sale deeds - Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, Sec.16 (3) - Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules, 1963, Rule 19.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, adjoining raiyats, filed one application under Sec.16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961, claiming pre-emption of three plots of land transferred by two sale deeds executed on the same day by respondent No. 6 in favor of respondent No. 5. The Subdivisional Officer held that the petitioners were adjoining raiyats of the lands transferred and rejected the claim of respondent No. 5 of being an adjoining raiyat. On appeal, the Collector remanded the case for deciding whether respondent No. 5 was an adjoining raiyat and whether one application could be filed for pre-emption in respect of the lands transferred by two sale deeds. The Board of Revenue dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners, relying on a Bench decision of the Patna High Court holding that one application in respect of two sale deeds was not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The Patna High Court held that one application filed in respect of two sale deeds is maintainable. The court interpreted Sec.16 (3) of the Act and Rule 19 of the Rules and held that the use of the singular includes the plural, and therefore, when transfers of land are made, one application can be made before the Collector. The court also held that the principle of law decided in the Bench decision of the Patna High Court, that if there is one sale deed transferring several plots of land in several blocks, the pre-emptor cannot ask the Court to apportion the consideration money under Sec.37 of the Act, is not applicable in the present case, as the two sale deeds in question were executed on the same day and the consideration money for each plot was separately mentioned.
Issues: 1. Whether one application can be filed for pre-emption in respect of two sale deeds executed on the same day transferring different plots of land? 2. Whether the principle of law laid down in the Bench decision of the Patna High Court, that if there is one sale deed transferring several plots of land in several blocks, the pre-emptor cannot ask the Court to apportion the consideration money under Sec.37 of the Act, is applicable in the present case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that one application filed in respect of two sale deeds is maintainable, as the use of the singular includes the plural, and therefore, when transfers of land are made, one application can be made before the Collector. The court also held that the requirement of filing a copy of the registered deed in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 would mean that copies of the registered deeds have got to be annexed. 2. The court held that the principle of law laid down in the Bench decision of the Patna High Court, that if there is one sale deed transferring several plots of land in several blocks, the pre-emptor cannot ask the Court to apportion the consideration money under Sec.37 of the Act, is not applicable in the present case, as the two sale deeds in question were executed on the same day and the consideration money for each plot was separately mentioned.
Final Decision: The Patna High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders of the Collector and the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, and remitted the case back to the Collector for rehearing and disposal of the appeal in accordance with law in the light of the judgment.
N.L.Untwalia, J.
1. At the outset it may be mentioned that petitioner No. 2 died during the pendency of this writ application in this Court. His heirs have been substituted as petitioners 2 (a) to 2 (d). Hereinafter in this judgment, by the petitioners would be meant the original petitioners.
2. Mosammat Jagta Kuer, respondent No. 6, executed two sale deeds in favour of Ram Chhapit Yadav respondent No. 5, on 27-12-63. By one sale deed, a copy of which is Annexure 6, she transferred 0.44 acre of land comprised in plot No. 175 and 0.20 acre of land comprised in plot No. 167 for a sum of Rs. 1,000. By another sale deed, a copy of which is Annexure 7, she transferred lands measuring 1.57 acres comprised in plot No. 182 for Rs. 2,000. The petitioners claiming to be adjoining raiyats of all the three plots transferred, which seemed to be in three different blocks, filed an application on 23-3-64 under Sec.16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act. Respondent No. 5 filed his objection and resisted the claim of pre-emption set up by the petitioners. One of the grounds on which the claim was resisted was that the purchaser himself was an adjoining raiyat of the lands transferred. Evidence was adduced before the Subdivisional Officer, Arrah, Sadar, respondent No. 2, by the parties. The learned Subdivisional Officer by his order dated 20-3-68 (Annexure 1) held that the petitioners were the adjoining raiyats of the lands transferred. At one place by a perfunctory discussion he seems to have rejected the claim of res-pondent No. 5 of his being an adjoining raiyat of the lands transferred. He went up in appeal. The appeal was allowed by the Collector by his order dated 17-11-69 (Annexure 2). A remand order was made on two grounds-- (i) that the contention of respondent No. 5 that one application could not be filed to claim preemption in respect of the lands transferred by two sale deeds had force and the Subdivisional Officer had not decided this point; and (ii) that the Subdivisional Officer also had not decided whether respondent No. 5 was an adjoining raiyat of the lands transferred. The petitioners went up in revision before the Board of Revenue. The learned Additional Member has dismissed it by his order dated 21-2- 70 (Annexure 3). Relying upon a Bench decision of this Court in Ramchabila Singh V/s. Ramsagar Singh, (1968 Pat LJR 279) the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, has held that one application in respect of two sale deeds executed by respondent No. 6 in favour of respondent No. 5 was not maintainable. The effect of that revision order would be that when the case goes on remand to the learned Subdivisional Officer he would be obliged to give effect to this opinion of the Board and dismiss the petitioners application filed under Sec.16 (3) of the Act. They have obtained a rule from this Court to quash the order of the Collector (Annexure 2) and that of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue (Annexure 3), against the respondents to show cause. The rule has been opposed by respondent No. 5.
3. Sec.16 (3) of the Act provides that when any transfer of land is made, then an adjoining raiyat may make an application for pre-emption. The application is to be made in accordance with Rule 19 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules, 1963, hereinafter called the Rules. Neither the section nor the rule aforesaid bars the filing of one application in respect of two sale deeds, Unless and until on general principles of law some difficulty is created in the filing and entertainment of one application. I see no reason to hold that one application filed in respect of two sale deeds is not maintainable. Applying the principle engrafted in the General Clauses Act that singular includes plural it is legitimate to take the view that when transfers of land are made an application, m
