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.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 02.09.2020 passed by the Additional Collector, Palamau- respondent no.3 in Land Ceiling Appeal Case No.XV/13 of 2017-18, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent no.5 was allowed, setting aside the order dated 08.06.2017 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Chhattarpur (Palamau)-respondent no.4 in Land Ceiling Case No.02 of 2016-17. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi-respondent no.2 in Revision Case No. 24 of 2020, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 5 purchased the land measuring an area of 0.02 Acres appertaining to R.S. Plot No.29 of Khata No.26 situated at Village Pipra, P.O. and P.S.- Pipra, District Palamau (hereinafter referred as the said land) by virtue of a registered sale deed no.4791/4698 dated 17.10.2016.

3. It is further submitted that the original preemptor, namely, Vijay Kumar Mishra filed application under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus land) Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act, 1961’) before the respondent no. 4 being Land Ceiling Case No.02 of 2016-17 claiming pre-emption on the ground that he was one of the co-sharers and adjoining raiyat with respect to the said land. The Respondent No.5 filed show cause in the said case stating inter alia that the said land was purchased for residential purpose and as such the application filed by the said pre-emptor claiming pre-emption was not maintainable. The respondent no. 4, however, allowed the said case vide order dated 08.06.2017. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent no.5 filed Land Ceiling Appeal Case No.XV/13/2017-18 before the Additional Collector, Palamau against the original preemptor and after his death, the petitioners were substituted as respondents. The said appeal was allowed vide order dated 02.09.2020, setting aside the order dated 08.06.2017 passed by the respondent no.4. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Revision Case No. 24 of 2020 against the respondent no.5 before the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand which was heard alongwith Revision Case Nos.25 of 2020 and 26 of 2020. The said revision petitions were dismissed vide common order dated28.09.2022.

4. It is also submitted that the said land is being used for agricultural purpose and the transferee is neither a co-sharer nor an adjoining raiyat with respect to the land in question. Thus, both the appellate as well as the revisional authorities exceeded their jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal and revision filed by the petitioners on absolutely irrelevant consideration of the materials available on record. In fact, neither the said land is homestead land nor the same is being used for dwelling purpose.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that there is no infirmity in the appellate order passed by the respondent no.3 as well as the revisional order passed by the respondent no. 2 and as such the same need no interference of this court in exercise of the power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted the respondent nos.2 and 3 have specifically observed in the impugned orders that the said land has been purchased for residential purpose and as such section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 is not applicable in the present case.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials ava