The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right of pre-emption under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961, must be strictly adhered to, including the time limit for filing applications and the status of the pre-emptor as a co-sharer or raiyat of adjoining land.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Navin Kumar, learned G.P.-IV appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9.

2. As common facts are involved in both the matters, accordingly both the writ petitions were heard together.

3. The petitioners have preferred W.P.(C) No. 4997 of 2014 for quashing the order dated 01.04.2014 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand in Board's Revision Case No. 20 of 2012 contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition and have preferred W.P.(C) No. 5035 of 2014 for quashing the order dated 01.04.2014 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand in Board's Revision Case No. 19 of 2012 contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition, whereby, the Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision applications filed by the petitioner under Section 32 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation and Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 1961). In both the writ petitions, the appellate orders passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in pre-emption Appeal No. 13R 15 of 2011-12 (Annexure-6 to W.P.C. No. 4997 of 2014) and in pre-emption Appeal No. 12R 15 of 2011-12 (Annexure-6 to W.P.C. No. 5035 of 2014) are also under challenge in the writ petitions.

4. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the mother of respondent no.10 namely Nirmala Devi along with Smt. Khileshwari Devi sold 0.21 acres of land appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 1434, 1.14 acres of land out of R.S. Plot No. 1436, 0.23 acres of land out of R.S. Plot No. 1428 and 0.26 acres out of R.S. Plot No. 1390 i.e. total area 1.84 acres of Khata No. 55 situated at Village Bare, P.S. Burmu to Smt. Laxmi Devi (respondent no.6) by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 29.12.1992 being deed no. 12397 of 2009. He further submitted that the said Laxmi Devi also transferred the lands measuring 0.10½ acres of R.S. Plot No. 1434, 0.57 acres of R.S. Plot No. 1436, 0.11½ acres of R.S. Plot No. 1428 and 0.13 acres of R.S. Plot No. 1390 i.e. total area 0.92 acres out of Khata No. 55 of the Village Bare to Surendra Munda, Tulsi Munda and Vijay Munda by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 27.03.2006. He further submitted that the original petitioner being the co-sharer of the said Nirmala Devi and Khileshwari Devi and also being the adjoining raiyat with respect to the vended lands filed applications under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 before the D.C.L.R., Sadar, Ranchi praying therein his right of pre-emption over the vended lands being pre-emption Case No. 06 of 2006-07 and pre-emption Case No. 05 of 2006-07 fulfilling all requirement as required under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 and the rules framed thereunder. He further submitted that by order dated 31.10.2011, the D.C.L.R., Sadar, Ranchi has allowed the pre-emption case in favour of the original petitioner. Aggrieved with this order, respondent nos. 6 to 10 preferred pre-emption Appeal No. 13R 15 of 2011-12 and pre-emption Appeal No. 12R 15 of 2011-12 before the Additional Collector, Ranchi, who allowed the appeals vide order dated 15.06.2012. The original petitioner aggrieved with the appellate order moved before the Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 19 of 2011-12 and 20 of 2011-12, which were heard together and respondent no.3 has dismissed the revision applications in terms of the order dated 01.04.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned orders on the ground that the original petitioner is an adjoining raiyat with respect to the vended lands and the pre-emption cases have been filed well within time. He further submitted that the claim of the original petitioner has been wrongly rejected without properly interpreting Section 16(3) of the Act