Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 757 (PAT)

Sita Ram Pandey v. State Of Bihar

2007-04-16

AFTAB ALAM

body2007
Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition arises from a pre-emption proceeding under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and it relates to a sale made over 25 years ago on 13.1.1982. 3. Respondent no. 5 Bhola Goswal purchased from respondent no. 6 three pieces of land, bearing Survey Plot Nos. 2116, 2117 and 2132, after obtaining necessary permission from the Consolidation Officer, under a registered sale deed dated 13.1.1982. The petitioner raised a claim of pre-emption on the ground that he was the adjoining raiyat of the transferred land. The L.R.D.C. found against him and rejected the claim by order, dated 26.7.1982. The petitioner took the matter in appeal where he was successful. The Collector, Bhojpur allowed the petitioners appeal and set aside the order passed by the L.R.D.C. Against the order passed by the Collector, respondent no. 5 came to the Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 148/87. The revision was allowed by order dated 21.12.1988 and the order of the Collector was set aside. 4. The Board of Revenue, as the L.R.D.C. before him, found and held that the petitioner was not an adjoining raiyat and he was, therefore, not entitled to maintain the claim of pre-emption. 5. According to the petitioner, the three plots, being the subject matter of dispute, formed one consolidated block. The petitioner held plot no. 2114 which was adjoining to both plot nos. 2116 and 2117. Since the three plots in dispute formed a compact block the fact that the petitioner did not hold any land adjoining the third plot (no. 2132) was inconsequential. In support of the claim that the three plots formed one compact block the petitioner placed reliance upon a report submitted by a Pleader Commissioner. In regard to the report the Board of Reyenue observed that it was not called for by any of the authorities and the Pleader Commissioner was not a court appointed Commissioner. He also noted that the Pleader Commissioner did not make any spot inspection but prepared his report and the map on the basis of the instructions given to him by the petitioners counsel. The Board of Revenue, therefore, did not take that report into account. He also noted that the Pleader Commissioner did not make any spot inspection but prepared his report and the map on the basis of the instructions given to him by the petitioners counsel. The Board of Revenue, therefore, did not take that report into account. On the basis of the materials on record, including the survey map the Board of Revenue found and held that the petitioner was not an adjoining raiyat in regard to the disputed plots of land. 6. The controversy is concluded by a finding of fact that does not warrant any interference by the writ court. No relief can, therefore, be granted to the petitioner. This writ petition is dismissed.