IMPORTANT POINT
[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 invalid.]

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. Since both the appeals arise out of the common order, as such they are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order.

Prayer:

2. Both the instant intra-court appeals, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, are directed against order/judgment dated 31.10.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 72 of 1999(R) with C.W.J.C. No. 74 of 1999(R), whereby and whereunder the original order dated 03.05.1995 passed in L.C. Case No. 11-12 of 1994-95 by the Land Reform Deputy Collector, Daltonganj; order dated 23.11.1995 in L.C. Appeal No. 01 and 02 of 1995-96 and order dated 06.10.1998 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue in L.C. Revision Case No. 321 and 322 of 1995 have been quashed and set aside by allowing the writ petition.

Brief facts of the case:

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petitions, read as under:

4. The respondent no. 6 executed two sale deeds being sale deed no. 2392 dated 24.03.1992, registered on 25.05.1994 in favour of the petitioner Urmila Devi [ subject matter of C.W. J.C. No. 72 of 1999 (R)] and sale deed no. 2393 dated 24.03.1992, registered on 25.05.1994 in favour of the petitioners Pushpa Devi and Urmila Devi [subject matter of C.W. J.C. No. 74 of 1999 (R)].

5. The respondent no. 5 (appellant herein) filed an application dated 22.08.1994 under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1961’] claiming right of pre-emption and the same was registered as L.C. Case No. 11-12 of 1994-95.

6. The learned DCLR, Palamau allowed the said pre-emption case L.C. Case No. 11-12 of 1994-95 filed by the pre-emptor under Section 16(3) of the Act in favour of the respondent no. 5 [appellant herein] vide order dated 03.05.1995.

7. Thereafter the appeal was preferred by the writ petitioners against the said order which was dismissed vide order dated 23.11.1995. Being aggrieved with the appellate order a revision petition being Case No. 321 and 322 of 1995 which was also dismissed vide order 06.10.1998.

8. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the three consecutive authorities, the writ petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petitions being in C.W.J.C. No. 72 of 1999(R) and C.W.J.C. No. 74 of 1999(R), which were heard together and allowed vide order dated 31.10.2014 holding that the courts below erred in recording the findings, which are not based on evidence, either oral or documentary and further the courts below have also failed to notice the nature of right of pre-emption.

9. The order dated 31.10.2014 passed by the learned writ court in C.W.J.C. No. 72 of 1999(R) with C.W.J.C. No. 74 of 1999(R) is the subject matter of instant intra-courts appeal.

10. Thus, it is evident that the appellant-Rajendra Mishra filed applications claiming right of pre-emption, registered as L.C. Case No. 11-12 of 1994-95, before the D.C.L.R., Palamau under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 which were heard and were allowed vide order dated 03.05.1995.

11. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent-Urmila Devi and respondent-Pushpa Devi preferred two separate appeals being L.C. Appeal No. 1 of 1995-96 and 2 of 1995-96, which were heard together and dismissed vide common order dated 23.11.1995, against which revision applications being L.C. Revision Case No. 321 and 322 of 1995 were filed, which were heard together and dismissed vide common order dated 06.10.1998.

12. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the original, appellate and revisional authority, the petitioners preferred writ petitions being C.W.J.C. No. 72 of 1999(R) and C.W.J.C. No. 74 of 1999(R), in which ground has been taken that right of pre-emption can be claimed for the entire property comprised in the sale deed and not with respect to the part of the property in the sale deed but form the applicat