Back
2004 Supreme(Pat) 750
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.K.Katriar, J.
Punyadeo Sharma
Versus
Additional Member, Board Of Revenue
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5018 of 2000 ; 10225 of 2000 ; 10314 of 2000 ; 10328 of 2000 ;
Decided On : JULY 27, 2004
Headnote:Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961-Section 16(3) read with sections 47 and 75(3) of Registration Act 1908-Pre-emption-A registered document takes effect from the date of execution and not from the date of registration-Three brothers purchasing a block of land in four parts through four sale deeds on 13.12.90, registered in 1993 on different dates-Pre-emptor filing four pre-emption application after registration of sale deeds-Right of pre-emption must fail as the three brothers had become adjoining raiyats on 13.12.90 the date on which the three sale deeds had been executed-section 16(2) (iii) qualifies the provision of registration with respect to surplus lands ceiling proceeding-The same does not form part of section 16(3) of the Act Which is almost complete by itself. (Paras 9 & 10)
1987 PLJR 251, 1994(1) BLJ 265, 1998(3) PLJR 373, 1970 PLJR 579, 1987 PLJR 455, 2004(2) PLJR 334, CWJC No.4594 of 2000 and CWJC No. 4599-Relied upon.
AIR 1969 SC 244-Distinguished.
Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961-Section 16(3)-Preemption is a weak right and can be defeated by any legitimate means-In order to defeat the claim of pre-emption, the purchaser is equally entitled to split the plot of land into more than one to be purchased by more than one registered document-Once registration of document of alienation takes place, the purchaser/transferee can claim to have acquired right, title and interest from the date of execution of the document rather than the date of registration of the same-In case of doubt or difficulty between the rival claims of the purchaser and the pre-emptor, the court shall ban in favour of the purchaser-Purchaser had become adjoining raiyats must before the pre-emptor filed applications. (Paras 20 & 21)
S.K.Katriar, J.
1. The purchasers are the petitioners with respect to proceedings under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Areas and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The writ petitions are directed against a common order dated 3.2.2000 (Annexure 3), passed by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, whereby he has allowed the four revision applications preferred by the pre-emptors, has set aside the order of the learned appellate authority, and has restored that of the learned first authority. In other words, the learned first authority had allowed the applications for pre-emption.
2. It is with respect to the purchase of a portion of plot No. 721 by four different documents by three full brothers in the manner indicated hereinafter, and the claim of pre-emption has been raised by the same person whose heirs are respondent Nos. 4 to 6 herein. The sketch map provided by the learned counsel for the petitioners as part of note of submissions, and not denied by the pre-emptors, is reproduced hereinbelow :
3. It relates to one block of land bearing plot No. 721. The three brothers (Punyadeo Sharma, Prithvilal Sharma, and Master Sharma) who are petitioners in CWJC. No. 5018 of 2000, jointly purchased the portion towards the north of plot No. 721 (marked A) by a registered deed of absolute sale executed on 9.2.90, and was registered on 7.1.92. The pre-emptors filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Act, on 31.3.92, claiming pre-emption with respect to the same on the strength of being an adjoining raiyat, which was registered as pre-emption Case No. 315/91-92, and was allowed by a common order Dt. 29.9.92 (Annexure 1), (alongwith the three analogous pre-emption applications discussed hereinbelow), passed by the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Siwan. The three brothers (the purchasers) preferred Appeal No. 317/92-93 which was allowed by common order Dt. 5.7.98 (Annexure 2), passed by the learned Collector of the district of Siwan, and the order of the DCLR was set aside. This gave rise to Board Revision No. 161/98 at the instance, of the. pre-emptors which has been allowed by the impugned order, the order of the appellate authority has been set aside, and that of the learned first authority has been restored.
3.1) The slice of the plot marked B in the aforesaid Sketch Map was purchased by Prithwilal Sharma by a registered deed of absolute sale from the same vendor which was executed on 13.12.90, and was registered on 8.9.93. The same set of pre-emptors filed pre-emption application which was registered as Pre-emption Case No. 11/93-94, giving rise to Appeal Case No. 277/94-95, and Board Revision Case No. 157/98, which was disposed of by the aforesaid orders with the same results throughout, giving rise to CWJC No. 10328 of 2000.
3.2) The slice of land marked C was alienated by the same vendor in favour of Master Shama on the same date, i.e., 13.12.90, and was registered on 8.9.93, giving rise to Pre-emption Application No. 13/93-94, which was filed on 24,9.93, giving rise to Appeal No. 279/94-95 and Board Revision No. 158/98 disposed of by common orders with the same results throughout. The same has given rise to CWJC No. 10225 of 2000.
3.3) The slice of land marked D was alienated by the same vendor in favour of the said Punyadeo Sharma by deed of absolute sale of the same date, i.e. 13.12.90, registered on 18.9.93, giving rise to Pre-emption Application No. 12/93-94, Appeal No. 278/9495, and Board Revision Case No. 159/98, disposed of by the common orders with the same results throughout. The same has given rise to CWJC No. 10328 of 2000.
4. The four writ petitioners are directed against common orders, with common facts and law, and have rightly been disposed of by common orders by the authorities below and are accordingly being disposed of by a common judgment. The basic facts required for adjudication of the four writ petitions are admit
