Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Shree Chandrashekhar, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
Sahida Khatoon w/o late Abdul Hamid - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand through Member Board of Revenue, P.O-Dhurwa, PS-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi - Respondent
L.P.A. No. 563 of 2019
Decided On : 30-10-2023
Pre-emption - Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 - Section 16(3), Section 32 - The court discussed the legal provisions of pre-emption under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the limitations on interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the principles of pre-emption as established by various judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The legal heirs of the purchaser, Abdul Hamid, appealed against an order to execute a sale deed in favor of the pre-emptors. The dispute arose from a sale deed challenged under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, leading to a series of legal proceedings and appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order of the statutory authorities under the Bihar Land Reforms Act should not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It also upheld the pre-emption rights of the claimants based on the statutory provisions and previous judgments.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the pre-emption application, the scope of interference under Article 226, and the timeliness of the execution case filed by the pre-emptors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles of limited interference under Article 226, the statutory rights of pre-emption conferred by the Bihar Land Reforms Act, and the applicability of previous judgments establishing pre-emption rights.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order for executing the sale deed in favor of the pre-emptors, citing the statutory rights of pre-emption and the limitations on interference under Article 226.
ORDER :
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
The substituted legal heirs of the purchaser, namely, late Abdul Hamid are in appeal against the order dated 29th July 2019 passed in W.P(C ) No.1582 of 2019.
2. The writ petition was filed by the legal heirs of Abdul Hamid to challenge the order dated 19th November 2018 passed in L.C Revision No.44 of 2017. In the meantime, Parmeshwar Rai also passed away and was substituted by Rukmani Devi, Dilip Rai, Robin Rai and Ranjit Rai by an order dated 13th May 2015 passed in the execution case. These substituted legal heirs were arrayed as respondent nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 before the writ Court.
3. For the sake of fullness, it would be necessary to indicate here that Abdul Hamid was a purchaser from Indradeo Rai and Nageshwar Rai who are respondent nos. 11 and 12 herein. Abdul Hamid claimed that he purchased a piece of land measuring about 84 decimals out of a big chunk of plot with area about 4.11 acres through a registered sale-deed dated 4th April 1989. This sale was challenged by Parmeshwar Rai, Nakul Rai, Sarju Rai and Raj Kumar Rai by filing an application under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (in short, “the Ceiling Act”) which was registered as L.C Case No.25 of 1991-92 and allowed in their favor vide judgment dated 23rd June 1993. The aforesaid order dated 23rd June 1993 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms was challenged in appeal which was dismissed on 18th January 1996. However, the revisional authority allowed the revision petition filed by Abdul Hamid under section 32 of the Ceiling Act by an order dated 22nd March 1999. Thus, the pre-emption application filed by Parmeshwar Rai, Nakul Rai, Sarju Rai and Raj Kumar Rai stood dismissed by virtue of the revisional order dated 22nd March 1999 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue. Aggrieved thereof, Parmeshwar Rai along with the other pre-emptors approached Patna High Court in CWJC No.1269 of 1999(R) but the writ Court declined to interfere with the order dated 22nd March 1999 and dismissed the writ petition.
4. Now against the order of the writ Court dated 1st May 2001, L.P.A No.319 of 2001 was filed by the pre-emptors which was allowed by the order dated 29th November 2002 and thus the order dated 23rd June 1993 was revived and the pre-emption application stood allowed.
5. Several years thereafter, an execution case was filed on 31st October 2014 by Parmeshwar Rai, Nakul Rai, Sarju Rai and Raj Kumar Rai which was opposed by the legal heirs of Abdul Hamid on the ground that the same was barred by limitation but this objection was overruled and the present appellants who are the legal heirs of Abdul Hamid were directed by an order dated 13th May 2015 to execute sale deed in favour of the legal heirs/successors of the pre-emptors. The appellate and revisional authorities have affirmed this order of the Deputy-Collector, Land Reforms.
6. The writ Court having regard to the aforesaid facts referred to the judgments in “Hamid Joharan (D) & Ors. v. Abdul Salam (D) & Ors.” AIR 2001 SC 3404, “Nagendra Nath Dey v. Suresh Chandra Dey” AIR 1932 PC 165, “Sidheshwar Prasad Singh & Ors. v. Ram Saroop Singh & Ors.” AIR 1963 Patna 412 (FB), “Shyama Pada Choudhary v. Saha Choudhury & Co. & Ors.” AIR 1976 Calcutta 122, “Most. Munni Devi v. Viswakarma Mandir Trust” 1998 3 BLJR 2185, “Ghanshyambhai K. Sathwara v. Sonubhai Baliram Patil & Ors.” AIR 2006 Gujarat 109, “Dharam Gope @ Dharam Mahto v. State of Bihar” (2004) 1 JCR 365, “Syed Yakoob v. Radhakrishnan” AIR 1964 SC 477, “Swarn Singh v. State of Punjab”(1976) 2 SCC 868, “Pepsico India Holding (P) Ltd v. Krishna Kant Pandey” (2015) 4 SCC 270, and “Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram”(1986) 4 SCC 447 and arrived at a conclusion that no interference is required with the order passed by the statutory authorities and, accordingly, dismissed W.P(C) No.1582 of 2019.
7. The writ Court has held as under:
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the law does not recognize the right of pre-emption by a person claiming to be a superior adjoining raiyat to that of the purchaser who is als....
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not extend to correcting factual determinations made by lower tribunals unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.
[The right of pre-emption under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act requires the claimant to provide evidence of co-sharer status, and the absence of such evidence renders the application inv....
The court emphasized that the right to pre-emption is weak in law and can be declined in appropriate cases.
The repeal of Section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act does not affect previously executed sale deeds, emphasizing that completed transactions must be upheld despite procedural amendments.
The right of pre-emption is a very weak right.
(1) Pre-emption – In a proceeding of pre-emption question of title in respect of title deeds rarely come up for adjudication as right of pre-emption is not a personal right and is attached with land.....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
