ORDER :

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 15.04.2004, passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Seraikela in Land Ceiling Case No. 12 of 2003-04 in terms of which an application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land), Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") filed by the respondent No. 5 has been allowed.

Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 22.01.2007, passed by learned Deputy Commissioner, Seraikela-Kharsawan in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 3 of 2004-05, in terms of which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 15.04.2004 has been dismissed.

It has also been prayed for quashing the order dated 23.12.2011/ 06.01.2012, passed by learned Member, Board of Revenue in Rev. Case No. 12 of 2007, by which the Revision preferred by the petitioner under Section 32 of the Act against the order dated 22.01.2007 has been dismissed.

3. The facts of the case in short is that by a registered sale deed dated 23.05.2003, the petitioner purchased 17 decimals of land falling under Plot Nos. 140, 141, 142, Khata No. 19, Than No. 52, situated in village Balrampur, P.S. Gamharia, District Seraikela-Kharsawan from Sambhu Nath Kumhar, MangalKumhar, Brindawan Kumhar and Sudhir Pal. Thereafter, by a registered deed of gift dated 04.08.2003, the petitioner transferred the same to his wife namely, Malti Mandaline. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No. 5 filed an application under Section 16 of the Act, claiming himself to be the co-sharer of the lands described above and the said case was registered as L.C. Case No. 12 of 2003-04. Upon notice, the petitioner appeared and filed his show-cause stating that the respondent No. 5 is neither the co-sharer nor the adjoining raiyat. It was further stated that the land in question stood transferred in the name of petitioner's wife prior to filing of the LC Case and as such, the said case itself is not maintainable. It was further stated that the land in question is not an agricultural land rather, there are several pucca houses constructed over the said plots and as such, the nature of the land has changed. The vendors of the petitioner have also appeared in LC Case and supported the case of the petitioner. However, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Seraikela-Kharsawan (respondent No. 4), without enquiring about the nature of the land, by his order dated 15.04.2004, passed in L.C. Case No. 12 of 2003-04, allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikela-Kharsawan (respondent No. 3), which was registered as LC Appeal No. 3 of 2004-05 and respondent No. 3 after hearing the parties, by his order dated 22.01.2007 dismissed the said appeal. Thereafter, the revision was also filed before the respondent No. 2, which was registered as Rev. Case No. 12 of 2007 but the respondent No. 2 by his order dated 23.12.2011/ 06.01.2012 dismissed the said revision of the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon'ble Court.

4. Mr. Rohit Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are perverse, illegal and without jurisdiction. The application under Section 16(3) of the Act filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5 was not maintainable particularly, in view of the fact that nature of land in question has ceased to be agricultural land and the said land had been transferred by the petitioner prior to institution of LC Case by respondent No. 5. Learned counsel further argues that respondent No. 5 is not a co-sharer of the said land and the onus to prove that the land in question is a joint family property and respondent No. 5 is a co-sharer, was not discharged by him. Learned counsel further argues that it was incumbent on part of res