Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 188 (PAT)

Manoj Kumar Jha v. State Of Bihar

2006-02-23

AFTAB ALAM

body2006
Judgment 1. This writ petition arises from a preemption proceeding under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act. The petitioner is the purchaser and he seeks to challenge the order of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue by which the revision filed by the pre-emptor (respondent no. 5) was allowed and his claim for pre-emption was upheld. 2. The dispute relates to a piece of land 1 katha 2 & 1/2 dhurs in area bearing plot no. 203 (old) 387 (new) under Khata No. 32 situated at mouza Ojhaul, Police Station-Bahadurpur in the district of Darbhanga. 3. The facts of the case are brief and simple. The disputed land admittedly belonged to one Mosmat Ram Sumari Devi. On 10.9.2001. she gave power of attorney, authorising Vidya Sagar Singh (respondent no. 6) to execute the sale of the disputed land. Vidya Sagar Singh executed the sale deed for the disputed land in favour of the petitioner on 19.11.2001. In the boundary of the disputed land as stated in the sale deed, respondent no. 5 is shown on its eastern and northern sides. In the recital portion of the sale deed, it was stated that Ram Sumari Devi needed the money for going on pilgrimages and for her other miscellaneous needs. 4. After the registration of the sale deed, respondent no. 5 filed an application before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, claiming pre-emption on the ground that he was the adjoining raiyat as well as a cosharer of the disputed land. 5. The petitioner sought to resist the claim of pre-emption taking the plea that the sale deed executed in his favour on 19.11.2001 was null and void because Ram Sumari Devi had died on 9.10.2001 and as a consequence, the power of attorney executed by her in favour of respondent no. 6 had become a dead letter and inoperative. In order to add substance to the plea, another sale deed in respect of the disputed land was executed by respondents 8 and 9, heirs of Ram Sumari Devi in favour of Akabari Devi, mother of the present petitioner on 22.12.2001. 6. As noted above, the petitioner took the plea before the Revenue Authorities that the sale deed executed in his favour by the power of attorney holder was void and inoperative as the principal had died before its execution. 6. As noted above, the petitioner took the plea before the Revenue Authorities that the sale deed executed in his favour by the power of attorney holder was void and inoperative as the principal had died before its execution. On the basis of that sale deed, he never came in possession of the land and hence, any claim of preemption against him was futile and meaningless. 7. The Deputy Collector, Land" Reforms accepted the petitioners plea and dismissed the application filed by respondent no. 5. His appeal before the Collector was similarly dismissed on the finding that Ram Sumari Devi had in fact died on 9.10.2001, before the execution of the sale deed on 19.11.2001. 8. In revision, however, the Additional Member, Board of Revenue reversed the finding and consequently allowed the claim of pre-emption by respondent no. 5. 9. From the above, it is evident that the whole case hinges on the date of death of Ram Sumari Devi. In case, it is found and held that she died on 9.10.2001, as claimed by the petitioner, then it would naturally follow that the sale deed executed by her attorney on 19.10.2001 was null and void and title to the disputed land never passed to the petitioner on its basis. But on the contrary, if it is found that Ram Sumari Devi was alive on 19.11.2001, then the claim of pre-emption by respondent no. 5 would be unstoppable because he undeniably happens to be an adjoining raiyat of the disputed land as is evident from the sale deed itself. 10. In support of his claim that Ram Sumari Devi died on 9.10.2001, the petitioner relied upon a death certificate that showed that the date of death of Ram Sumari Devi was registered on 5.10.2001 as 9.10.2001. 11. On behalf of respondent no. 5, it was urged that the certificate was false and it was obtained by the petitioner in collusion with the Panchayat Sevak. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue accepted the respondents contention and found the certificate to be quite suspicious. The following reasons were assigned for holding that the certificate was unreliable. (i) In the sale deed, it was stated in the recital portion that the money was required by Ram Sumari Devi for going on pilgrimages and for her other miscellaneous needs. It is implied that she was alive on the date of its execution. The following reasons were assigned for holding that the certificate was unreliable. (i) In the sale deed, it was stated in the recital portion that the money was required by Ram Sumari Devi for going on pilgrimages and for her other miscellaneous needs. It is implied that she was alive on the date of its execution. The sale deed was witnessed by her two grandsons, namely, Shriman Narayan Singh and Prabhat Kumar Singh who were also the attesting witnesses in the power of attorney. It is, thus, evident that Ram Sumari Devi was alive on the date of execution of the sale deed and the fact was within the knowledge of her grandsons. (ii) The death certificate of Ram Sumari Devi produced by the petitioner is shown to be issued by Bahadur Anchal Office, but it bears the seal of Manigachi Anchal which is at a distance of 30 miles from Bahadurpur. (iii) The printed serial number on the death certificate of Ram Sumari Devi was 543576. This certificate was issued on 20.10.2001. From the same book, on the previous leaf bearing printed serial number 543575 another death certificate was issued on 1.12.2001. This made it clear that the death certificate of Ram Sumari Devi was antedated in collusion with the Panchayat Sevak. 12. On hearing counsei tor the parties and on going through the order of the Board of Revenue, it appears that the controversy is concluded by the finding of fact that has been arrived at for good and valid reasons. This matter thus warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 13. This writ petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs.