IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1730 of 2006

1. Inderdeo Choudhary

2. Murli Manohar Choudhary 3. Umesh Kumar Choudhary All sons of late Pitamber Choudhary, resident of village – Mango, P.O. Sudan, Via – Jai Nagar, P.S. Barkathha, District –

Hazaribagh. … … Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand

3. The Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, P.O. P.S. and District –

Hazaribagh

4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reform, Barhi, P.O., P.S. Barhi, District – Hazafibagh

5. (a) Yamuna Devi, wife of late Harihar Choudhary (b) Sheo Shankar Choudhary, son of late Harihar Choudhary (c ) Jay Shankar Choudhary, son of late Harihar Choudhary (d) Siya Dulari, daughter of late Harihar Choudhary (e ) Phool Kumari, daughter of late Harihar Choudhary All residents of village – Mango, P.O. – Sudan, via – Jai Nagar, P.S. – Chalkusa, District - Hazaribag

6. Smt. Dulia Devi, wife of Sri Etwari Mahto, resident of village –

Alagdih, P.S. Barkathha, P.O. & District - Hazaribagh … … Respondents ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Petitioners : Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate : Md. Abdul Wahab, Advocate : Mr. Anurag Chandra, Advocate For the Resp. No.5 : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai, AC to SC (L&C)I ---

18/16.02.2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief: “That in the present writ petition, the abovenamed Petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ/Rule/order/direction of like nature to quash the order dated 12.12.2005 (Annexure-5) passed by Respondent no.2 in Hazaribagh Revision Case no. 59/2004 whereby the respondent no.2 illegally allowed the revision and the application filed by Respondent no.5 under section 16(3) (i) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (here-in- after referred to as the Act) after setting aside the order dated 29.10.2004 (Annexure-4) passed by respondent no. 3 in Land Ceiling Appeal no. 15 of 2003 and the order dated 30.9.2003 (Annexure-3) passed by Respondent no. 4 in Land Ceiling Case no. 2/2003; And for issuance of such other writ/Rule/order/Direction as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts and the circumstances of the case.”

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the purchasers of the property involved in this case and respondent no.5 was the preemptor, who filed an application under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. The learned counsel submits that both the authorities i.e. the authority, who had adjudicated the pre-emption application as well as the appellate authority, held that the petitioners were the co-sharers of the property and dismissed the application for pre-emption.

4. The learned counsel submits that the specific case of the petitioners was that they are the co-sharers of the property and it was never their case that they are the adjoining raiyats with respect to the property involved in this case.

5. The learned counsel submits that the Member, Board of Revenue had not exercised his jurisdiction properly while reversing the finding of the two authorities. For this, he has relied upon a judgement passed by Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in AIR 1985 (Patna) 129 (Mahanth Dhansukh Giri Vs. State of Bihar) and submitted that the scope of interference in the order passed by the appellate authority by the Member, Board of Revenue is very limited.

6. The learned counsel for respondent no.5 has submitted that the petitioners had purchased the property after it was already sold by their ancestors. He submits that by no stretch of imagination, the petitioners could be said to be co-sharers of the vended property which was already sold way back in 1971. He submits that there were different transactions with