The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the court to issue a writ of certiorari in cases where there is a perversity in finding, particularly when the relevant facts have not been considered, as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder orders dated 15.02.2008 passed in Pre-emption Case No.05 of 2004-05, order dated 23.03.2011 passed in Pre-emption Appeal No.02 R-15 of 2008-09 and order dated 18/23.07.2013 passed in Revision Case No.17 of 2011 have been assailed.

2. This Court has found from the record that the notices were issued upon the Respondent No.5 through registered cover with A/D as well as by ordinary process, as would appear from order dated 21.07.2016. The Respondent No.5 has appeared, as would appear from the office note and also filed Vakalatnama.

The matter was taken up on 19.08.2021 but non represented the concerned respondent. However, on 21.10.2021, Mr. Mritunjay Choudhary, learned counsel for the Respondent No.5 had appeared and sought for two weeks’ time since he was not ready with the brief and accordingly, on his prayer, time was allowed.

Again, on 16.12.2021, appearance on behalf of Respondent No.5 was made, being represented by Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel.

The matter, thereafter, was listed on 21.02.2022, but none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.5 on that date.

This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the writ petition is of the year 2013 and the Respondent No.5 is not appearing, therefore, deems it fit and proper to proceed with the hearing of the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition has been heard.

3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, read hereunder as :-

The land in question situated in Mauza Chakla, Khata No.128, Plot No.122 Area 0.57 acre, out of which 0.10 acre has been sold out in favour of one Sri Jagdish Prasad Sahu, son of Khemlal Sahu, opposite party No.1/writ petitioner, for consideration amount of Rs.61,000/- by virtue of registered sale deed No.12904 dated 23.09.2004.

The applicant/Respondent No.5, subsequent thereto, has filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Ceiling (Fixation of Surplus Area) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 1961), after depositing the required amount as per the aforesaid provision.

The concerned authority, has issued notice to the opposite party, the petitioner herein. The petitioner, being opposite party No.1 before the authority concerned, has submitted its reply making objection to the application filed under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 since the applicant is neither adjacent Raiyat nor co-sharer of the land in question.

The ground of the applicant that she has purchased the land by virtue of sale deed executed on 16.10.1996, has seriously been disputed on the ground that such registered deed has never been executed, since no document to that effect has ever been produced before the authority deciding the application filed under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961.

The original authority has decided the issue by passing the order on 15.02.2008 in Pre-emption Case No.05/2004-05 holding therein that the very sale of the land in favour of the petitioner is in the teeth of the provision of Section 16 of the Act, 1961 and, as such, the very transfer has been held to be illegal.

The petitioner, being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 15.02.2008, has preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, however, the same had been dealt with by the Additional Collector, Ranchi being Pre-emption Appeal Case No.02 R-15/2008-09 by taking the ground that the very issue of locus, came to have obtained by the applicant, on the basis of registered sale deed dated 16.10.1996 is having no foundation since such registered sale deed has never been executed and further, the land which has been purchased by the petitioner is having no agricultural background.

The appellate authority, vide order dated 23.03.2011, has dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-prosecution affirming the order passed by the original authority dated 15.02.2008 in Pre-emption