Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1034 (JHR)

Bishunath Nandi v. State Of Bihar

2006-08-08

R.K.MERATHIA

body2006
JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard. 2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the Memo No. 167/Land Reforms dated 23.3.1998 (Annexure-1), issued by respondent No. 2 informing him that the Commissioner has stayed the permission of transfer of leasehold right in his favour and directing stay of registration, if any, pending the enquiry into the objections raised by respondent No. 6. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing letter No. 258 dated 20.4.1998 (Annexure-3) issued by respondent No. 5, whereby he had informed the respondent No. 4 that necessary action may be taken in connection with permission of sale of the premises in question in favour of respondent No. 6. 3. Admittedly, one Ashit Ranjan Paul sold his Khasmahal leasehold right for a portion of the premises to respondent No. 6. Sarita Devi Gupta by registered sale deed dated 18.2.1991 and by registered sale deed dated 18.3.1998. he sold some portion to the petitioner also. 4. Respondent No. 6 raised the following objections before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur, Ranchi. The total area of plot No. 2164 was one Katha three dhurs which comes to three decimals. Out of which by the said registered deed, she purchased an area of one Katha and 1 and 1/2 dhurs i.e. 2-3/4 decimals with due permission. The seller intended to sell the other room of the building to the petitioner which is under one RCC roof and the western side wall of the room intended to be sold has already been sold to her. There will be difficulty in creating holding number also. In these circumstances, she requested not to grant permission in favour of the petitioner and after due enquiry the said premises be transferred in her favour for which she was ready to pay the price. Then the permission for transfer was granted in favour of petitioner, which was also objected by respondent No. 6. On such objections, respondent No. 2 initiated enquiry and stayed the permission of transfer granted to the petitioner and on this, operation of registration was also stayed. Respon dent No. 5 recommended that permission can be granted in favour of respondent No. 6 for sale of the premises, for which permission was already granted in favour of petitioner. 5. Respondent No. 4 in his letter No. 365-A dated 19.5.1998 found that there was no provision for claiming pre-emption, as the property was residential/commercial. Respon dent No. 5 recommended that permission can be granted in favour of respondent No. 6 for sale of the premises, for which permission was already granted in favour of petitioner. 5. Respondent No. 4 in his letter No. 365-A dated 19.5.1998 found that there was no provision for claiming pre-emption, as the property was residential/commercial. In my opinion, respondent No. 4 has rightly held that the claim of pre-emption of respondent No. 6 was not tenable. 6. Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 then submitted that the seller had only one katha and three dhurs. Out of which, he sold one katha and 1-1/2 dhur to respondent No. 6, leaving only 1-1/2 dhur. Then how he could be permitted to sell two dliurs to the petitioner. 7. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that no such objection was raised by respondent No. 6 that the area sought to be sold was more than the area held by the seller. He submitted that the objection of respondent No. 6 was that the rooms sold by seller to the petitioner and respondent No. 6 had a common root and one of the wall of the room sold to the petitioner was already purchased by her. 8. In my opinion, such disputed question of fact cannot be decided in this writ petition by this Court. However, counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 6 agreed that the matter may be remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for a proper and scientific demarcation on the basis of the area-boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds registered in favour of the parties. 9. In the circumstances, petitioner and respondent No. 6 are directed to appear and file their respective claims before respondent No. 3 along with a copy of this order, within four weeks from today. Respondent No. 3 will enquire into the matter and pass orders, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties, within four months from today. 10. As I have not gone into the merits of the dispute, observation if any, made in this order will not prejudice the parties. 11. With these observations and directions this u/pt petition is disposed of. No costs.