ORDER :

I.A. No. 9997 of 2022

1. Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has filed I.A. No. 9997 of 2022 to add Md. Mostakim as a party.

2. Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajet, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 3 has opposed the prayer and has submitted that when he has taken such defence no such improvement can be made in the pleading.

3. This Court has also perused the judgment of this Court in the case of Raghunath Ram @ Raghubir Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2006 SCC Online Jhar 520 : (2006) 4 JLJR 562 (HC) and has found that no such opportunity can cure the indefeasible effects of the file.

4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 9997 of 2022 is hereby dismissed.

W.P. (C) No. 3235 of 2006

5. The instant writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the respondent No. 2-Member, Board of Revenue dated 30.03.2006 passed in Rev. Case No. 15 of 2005.

6. Leaned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, that a preemption application has been filed by the petitioner against Mostakim Mian, who has executed a registered sale deed dated 10.01.2004 in favour of Mumtaz Ahmad son of Reyazuddin with respect to the land of Khata No. 96, Plot No. 858, area 0.05 acre.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector vide Hazaribagh Case No. 03 of 2004, which was filed by the petitioner-Md. Hasim against Md. Mostakim Mian, notice was issued to Md. Mostakim. He has further submitted that though notice has also been issued against Mumtaz also but he has submitted that there is no such averment nor any document has been brought on record to substantiate that Md. Mumtaz was also noticed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, that notice was duly executed against Md. Mostakim but Md. Mostakim did not appear before the Court and thus, ex-parte hearing was held before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribag with respect to the land of Village Kud, Khata No. 96, Plot No. 858, Rakba 0.33 acre, Area 0.05 acre and passed an order on the ground that both the parties, i.e. Md. Hasim and Mumtaz Ahmad are agnates but Md. Hasim has a better right.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that subsequently a deed was executed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector himself in favour of Md. Hasim. Again the said order of Land Reforms Deputy Collector dated 18.06.2004 passed in Hazaribagh Case No. 03 of 2004, the private respondent No. 3-Mumtaz Ahmad preferred an appeal before the court of Additional Collector (Bhu Hakbandi Hazaribag, which was registered as Land Ceiling Case No. 11 of 2004) and notice was issued to Md. Hasim, who is petitioner before this Court. The Additional Collector has also rejected the appeal on the ground that the claim of the appellant is not stronger than the claim of the opposite party, i.e. Md. Hasim.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, and both the courts have given a concurrent finding, the Board of Revenue has passed a cryptic vague order which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and, as such, the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue dated 30.03.2006 passed in Rev. Case No. 15 of 2005 is fit to be set aside.

11. Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, AC to Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned SC (L&C)-I appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has submitted, that the Board of Revenue has passed a reasoned and explanatory order. The Board of Revenue has rightly rejected the judgment passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector, which is non-sustainable in the eyes of law as without giving any date on the notice issued against Md. Mostakim, the LRDC has fixed the case ex-parte. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that it was an apparent error on the part of the LRDC, ought not to have been committed.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has further submitted, that the Board of Revenue has rightly considered this point for setting aside the order of LRDC and also rightly considered the ju