Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sinha, J.
Ram Chandra Singh
Versus
Sub Divisional Officer, Hajipur
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 76 of 1982 ; 1459 of 1982 ;
Decided On : MAY 27, 1988
LAND CEILING - PRE-EMPTION - VALIDITY OF SALE DEED - NOTICE TO TRANSFEROR - MANDATORY REQUIREMENT - NON-COMPLIANCE - EFFECT - URBAN LAND CEILING AND REGULATION ACT, 1976 - APPLICABILITY TO AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED WITHIN MUNICIPAL LIMITS.
Fact of the Case:
Mst. Samia executed two registered sale deeds in favor of Mst. Mania. Pritlal Singh filed applications for pre-emption under S.16(3)(i) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1981. Mst. Mania appeared and filed a show cause stating that the sale deeds were canceled due to non-payment of consideration. Mst. Samia executed a registered deed of cancellation and sold the land to Raghubar Saran Mishra. Raghubar Saran Mishra sold portions of the land to various individuals. Pritlal Singh died and his heirs were substituted in the pre-emption case. The Sub-Divisional Officer directed the Nazir to execute the sale deed on behalf of Mst. Mania. Mst. Mania challenged the order, but her appeals were dismissed. The petitioners, claiming to be the successors-in-interest of Mst. Samia, filed a writ petition challenging the pre-emption order and the subsequent proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
1. The intention of the parties regarding the passing of title upon execution of a sale deed depends on various factors, including recitals in the deed and the conduct of the parties. 2. In this case, Mst. Mania stated that she did not have any right, title, or interest in the land as she had not paid the consideration amount. This conduct is relevant in determining the parties' intention. 3. No notice was issued to Mst. Samia or her legal heirs after her death in the pre-emption proceeding. The Sub-Divisional Officer did not consider the effect of non-impleading Mst. Samia as a party. 4. Rule 19 of the Bihar Land Ceiling Rules, 1963, requires notice to be sent to both the transferor and transferee. The Collector must issue notice to the transferor and give an opportunity to show cause. 5. The transferor is a necessary party to a proceeding under S.16(3) of the Act. 6. The failure to comply with Rule 19 vitiates the entire proceeding. 7. Bringing Mst. Dukhi, one of Mst. Samia's heirs, on the record before the Board of Revenue does not cure the defect of non-compliance with Rule 19. 8. The question of whether the land is situated within the municipal area is a disputed question of fact that cannot be determined in a writ application. 9. The Act applies to the whole of Bihar, including agricultural lands situated within the limits of a municipality or notified area committee. 10. The provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976, do not bar the application of the Act to agricultural land within municipal limits.
Issues: 1. Whether the sale deeds executed by Mst. Samia in favor of Mst. Mania were valid and passed title. 2. Whether the pre-emption proceedings were valid in light of the non-issuance of notice to Mst. Samia or her legal heirs. 3. Whether the transferor is a necessary party to a proceeding under S.16(3) of the Act. 4. Whether the failure to comply with Rule 19 of the Bihar Land Ceiling Rules, 1963, vitiates the entire proceeding. 5. Whether bringing Mst. Dukhi on the record before the Board of Revenue cures the defect of non-compliance with Rule 19. 6. Whether the Act applies to agricultural land situated within the limits of a municipality or notified area committee. 7. Whether the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976, bar the application of the Act to agricultural land within municipal limits.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The validity of a sale deed depends on the intention of the parties, which can be gathered from various factors, including recitals in the deed and the conduct of the parties. 2. The transferor is a necessary party to a proceeding under S.16(3) of the Act. 3. Failure to comply with Rule 19 of the Bihar Land Ceiling Rules, 1963, which requires notice to be sent to both the transferor and transferee, vitiates the entire proceeding. 4. Bringing one of the transferor's heirs on the record at a later stage does not cure the defect of non-compliance with Rule 19. 5. The Act applies to the whole of Bihar, including agricultural lands situated within the limits of a municipality or notified area committee. 6. The provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976, do not bar the application of the Act to agricultural land within municipal limits.
Final Decision: C.W.J.C. No. 2083 of 1985 is allowed, and C.W.J.C. No. 1459 of 1982 and C.W.J.C. No. 76 of 1982 are dismissed.
1. These three writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. In C.W.J.C. No. 76 of 1982 and C.W.J.C. No. 1459 of 1982, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hajipur dated 1-9-1981 passed in Case No. 14 of 1980-81 in connection with Case No. RI/ of 1986 and case No. R/16 of 1986 as contained in Annexure-5 to C.W.J.C. No. 76 of 1982 and Annexure-3 to C.W.J.C. No. 1459 of 1982 and further for a writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to put the petitioner in possession of the lands whereby and whereunder applications filed by him under S.16(3)(i) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1981* (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were allowed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer and wherefor sale deeds have been executed by the Court concerned in terms of O.21, R.34 of the Civil P.C. read with S.16(3)(ii) of the Act.
2. C.W.J.C. No. 2083 of 1985 has been filed by the petitioners, thereafter for claiming inter alia therein the following reliefs :
"(i) A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 19-8-1969 contained in Annexure-3 and all subsequent actions in pursuance thereof be issued.
(ii) An appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents first and third parties to forbear from interfering in any way with the petitioners possession over the land in dispute be issued."
Before proceeding to decide the issues involved in these three writ applications, the facts of the case may be noted.
3 The lands in question which are involved in these writ applications admittedly belonged to the Mst. Samia. The said Mst. Samia executed two registered sale deeds on 22-11-65 in respect of the lands in question in favour of Mst. Mania (respondent No. 4 in both C.W.J.C. No. 76 of 1982 and C.W.J.C. No. 1459 of 1982). One Pritlal Singh, who was allegedly the co-sharer and was holding land adjoining to lands in question (the predecessor in interest of the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 1459 of 1982) filed two applications for pre-emption purported to be under S.16(3)(i) of the Act in respect of the lands covered under the aforementioned sale deeds and the case was registered as Case No. RI/15 of 1966 and RI/16 of 1966 respectively. Both the aforementioned applications were filed on 3-12-1965 and the petitioners of the aforementioned two writ applications Mst. Mania appeared in the said cases and filed her show cause on 30th April, 1966 stating therein that Mst. Samia had cancelled the sale deed on 10-3-1966 owing to non-payment of consideration amount and the original Kewala as also in view of the fact that the deeds of sale were with the vendor Mst. Samia she was not interested in the land in question.
4. According to the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 2083 of 1985 Mst. Samia had not paid the consideration money and as such the said two registered sale deeds dated 22-11-1965 were cancelled by a registered deed of cancellation dated 10-3-1966. A copy of the said deed of cancellation is contained in Annexure-1 to the aforementioned writ application. The further case of the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 2083 of 1985 is that, thereafter, Mst. Samia by a registered sale deed dated 11-7-1976 sold the said lands to Raghubar Saran Mishra for valuable consideration and the said vendee came in possession of the said lands and got his name mutated in the office of the State of Bihar. It is further alleged that the said Raghubarsaran Mishra sold 1 Katha 5 dhurs of lands out of the aforementioned lands to Nirmala Devi, wife of Upendra Mohan Mishra who also in turn sold the same to Smt. Indra Devi. It is alleged that the transferee came in possession of the said land. It has further been alleged that the son of Raghubar Saran Mishra, Shri Sheo Chandra Mishra by two registered sale deeds dated 9-5-1983 and 2-3-1983 sold the lands in favou
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
