SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Pat) 1164

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.
Jitendra Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Patna & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 7111 & 12726 of 1992
Decided On : 21-04-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Mr. Pandit Jee Pandey, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Mr. Kashi Nath Chaubey
For the Respondents: Mr. Atul Kumar Pandey

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right of pre-emption must subsist until the final determination of the pre-emption under the Act, and that the property inherited by the claimant devolved upon the heirs of her father, as per Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Headnote:

Pre-emption - Right of Devolution - Sections 15(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and 16(3) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Summary of Acts and Sections

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over the right of pre-emption under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961, arising from the death of a female Hindu claimant during the pendency of revision proceedings. The key issues were the devolution of the pre-emption right and the determination of the preferential right to acquire land sold by an adjacent landholder.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the property inherited by the female Hindu claimant from her father devolved upon the heirs of her father, as per Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court also held that the right of pre-emption vested in the claimant's husband after her death, and that the right of pre-emption must subsist until the final determination of the pre-emption under the Act.

Issues: The main issues were the devolution of the pre-emption right after the death of the claimant, and the determination of the preferential right to acquire land sold by an adjacent landholder.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the property inherited by the claimant from her father devolved upon the heirs of her father, and that the right of pre-emption vested in the claimant's husband after her death. The court also emphasized that the right of pre-emption must subsist until the final determination of the pre-emption under the Act.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the applications and directed the Collector to pass an order for the transfer of the land in favor of the heirs of the claimant's husband, in accordance with Section 16(3)(iii) of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. An interesting question has emerged in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which arise out of orders passed by the revenue authorities, on the right of the private respondents of pre-emption as contemplated under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The question which has emerged to be answered, can, for the purpose of convenience to deal with it, be divided into two parts:-

(i) If an issueless female Hindu, who had successfully claimed her right of pre-emption during her life time on the basis of her claim of being adjoining landholder of a land, which she had inherited from her father, dies during the pendency of the revision proceedings under the Act, whether such right would devolve on her husband or will vanish by virtue of Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

(ii) Whether the said preferential right to acquire land sold by an adjacent landholder and/or co-sharer is determinable with reference to the date of filing of pre-emption application or such right must subsist till culmination of final proceeding of appeals and revisions, prescribed under the Act.

2. For better appreciation of the legal issues involved, Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 are being extracted hereinbelow:

“15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus

(1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16 :

(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband;

(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;

(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;

(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and

(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)-

(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in subsection (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and

(b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband”.

* * * * * * * * *

“16(3) (i) When any transfer of land is made after the commencement of the Act to any person other than a co-sharer or a raiyat of adjoining land, any cosharer of the transferor or any raiyat holding land adjoining the land transferred, shall be entitled, within three months of the date of registration of the document, of transfer, to make an application before the collector in the prescribed manner for the transfer of the land to him on the terms and conditions contained in the said deed:

Provided that no such application shall be entertained by the Collector unless the purchase money together with a sum equal to ten percent thereof is deposited in the prescribed manner within the said period.

(ii) On such deposit being made the cosharer or the raiyat shall be entitled to be put in possession of the land irrespective of the fact that the application under clause (i) is pending for decision:

Provided that where the application is rejected, the co-sharer or the raiyat, as the case may be, shall be evicted from the land and possession there of shall be restored to the transferee and the transferee shall be entitled to be paid a sum equal to ten percent of the purchase money out of the




































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top