Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
B.D.Singh and Birendra Prasad Sinha JJ.
Ram Bahal Singh
Versus
Chhote Narain Singh
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1252 of 1974 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 15, 1975
LAND REFORMS - PRE-EMPTION - RIGHT OF - APPLICATION FOR - REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED - COMPLETION OF - JURISDICTION OF AUTHORITIES UNDER THE ACT - COGNIZANCE OF APPLICATION - JURISDICTION - VOID ORDER - SUBSEQUENT ORDERS AND RESOLUTION - VALIDITY OF.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, claiming to be raiyats of adjoining lands, challenged the orders and resolution passed by various authorities under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (the Act), granting the right of pre-emption to respondents 1 to 7 in respect of certain lands sold by respondent No. 10 to respondents 8 and 9. The petitioners contended that the application for pre-emption was filed prematurely, as it was filed before the registration of the sale deed was completed, and that the authorities acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the application and passing the impugned orders.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the application for pre-emption was indeed filed prematurely, as the registration of the sale deed was completed only after the application was filed. The Court relied on its earlier decision in Kauleshwar Singh V/s. Parmanand, 1972 Pat LJR 321 : (AIR 1972 Pat 407), which held that a person claiming to pre-empt got a right to file an application only when the registration of a document of transfer was complete. The Court further held that the authorities acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the application and passing the impugned orders, and that the subsequent orders and resolution were also void and without jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether the application for pre-emption was filed prematurely? 2. Whether the authorities acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the application and passing the impugned orders?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the application for pre-emption was filed prematurely, as the registration of the sale deed was completed only after the application was filed. The Court relied on its earlier decision in Kauleshwar Singh V/s. Parmanand, 1972 Pat LJR 321 : (AIR 1972 Pat 407), which held that a person claiming to pre-empt got a right to file an application only when the registration of a document of transfer was complete. 2. The Court held that the authorities acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the application and passing the impugned orders, as the application was filed prematurely. The Court further held that the subsequent orders and resolution were also void and without jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders and resolution passed by the authorities under the Act.
B.D.SINGH, J.
1. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Ram Bahal Singh alias Bahal Singh and five others is directed against an order dated 14-3-1966 (Annexure 2) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jahanabad (respondent No. 12), order dated 16-8-1967 (Annexure 3) passed by the Additional Collector (respondent No. 13), order dated 3-2-1972 (Annexure 4) passed by the Commissioner. Patna Division (respondent No. 14) and the resolution dated 18-8-1972 (Annexure 5) of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue (respondent No. 15). In the application the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the orders and resolution as contained in those Annexures.
2. In order to appreciate the point involved in this application it will be necessary to state briefly the facts. Radhe Shekhar Singh (respondent No. 10) sold 5.53 acres of land inclusive of a house, standing on plot No. 916 measuring an area of 0.4 decimal to respondent No. 8, (Dineshwar Singh) and respondent No. 9 (Muneshwar Singh) by a sale deed dated 11-9-1965, registration whereof was completed under Sec. 61 of the Indian Registration Act on 19-3-1966 for a consideration of Rs. 24,000/-. The aforesaid land comprised of as many as 27 plots and, according to the petitioners they are raiyats and holders of adjoining land in respect of at least 16 plots as it would be evident from the sale deed itself. The name of petitioner No. 1 is mentioned in one or the other boundary of 16 plots out of 27 plots, which were the subject-matter of the said sale deed. Petitioner No. 1 is father of other petitioners. All the petitioners, as stated by them, are members of a joint Hindu Mitakshara family. Subsequently, the petitioners by a registered sale deed dated 14-10-1965 purchased a house appertaining to plot No. 916 from respondents 8 and 9 in the names of petitioners 2 to 6 for a consideration of Rs. 2,000.00 and amalgamated the said house with their own ancestral house over plots Nos. 913, 917 and 918, which lie, according to the petitioners, partly adjacent, south of plot No. 916 and partly adjacent, east of plot No. 916. By another registered sale deed of the same date, the petitioners purchased 1¼ annas interest out of the remaining properties covered by the sale deed dated 11-9-1965 from respondents 8 and 9 in the name of petitioner No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 1,719/-. The petitioners thereafter entered into possession of the subject-matter of the two sale deeds, which were executed in their favour. On 23-10-1965 there was a partition between the petitioners on the one hand and respondents 8 and 9 on the other regarding 1¼ annas interest in the properties and the lands comprised in various plots mentioned in Schedule I of the report of the Circle Inspector dated 30-11-1965 (Annexure 1) fell into the exclusive share of petitioner No. 1, Bahal Singh.
3. On 28-10-1965 respondents 4 to 7 and Ramnandan Singh (since deceased), father of respondents 1 to 3, filed an application under Sec.16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Sub-Divisional Officer, (respondent No. 12) and impleaded the petitioners as parties along with respondents 8 and 9 in exercise of right of pre-emption on account of the sale deed executed by respondent No. 10 in favour of respondents 8 and 9. Respondent No. 12 took cognizance on the same date, that is, 28-10-1965, issued notice and called for a report from Anchal Adhikari, Jahanabad, who, in his turn, called for a report from the Circle Inspector and after receiving the report from him the Anchal Adhikari forwarded the report dated 30-11-1965 (Annexure 1) to respondent No. 12, who after hearing the parties, allowed the application filed by respondents 4 to 7 and father of respondents 1 to 3, under Sec.16 (3) of the Act by his order dated 14-3-1966 (Annexure 2).
4. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners and res
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
