Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 869 (PAT)

Shiv Narain Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2007-05-02

AFTAB ALAM

body2007
Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. Heard Mr. Asutosh Ranjan Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the private respondents. 2. This writ petition arises from a preemption proceeding under Section 16(3) of the Land Ceiling Act and the petitioner before the court is the pre-emptor. The claim of pre-emption was in respect of a piece of land that was transferred by one Ratan Sah (impleaded as respondent no. 5 in the writ petition and after whose death his heirs were substituted in his place) in favour of respondent no. 6 Gulat Yadav under a registered deed of sale executed, as far as back, on 19.6.1967. The petitioner raised the claim of pre-emption in respect of the transferred land on the ground that he was an adjoining raiyat. Apparently, the pre-emptor and the purchaser (respondent no. 6) had a common ancestor and respondent no. 6 resisted his claim on the plea that he was as much an adjoining raiyat of the disputed land. 3. In the first round, the D.C.L.R. allowed the claim of pre-emption and directed respondent no. 6 to re-convey the disputed land in favour of the pre-emptor, the petitioner before the court. In appeal the Addl. Collector set aside the order of the D.C.L.R. and remitted the matter to him with a direction to pass a fresh order after holding spot inspection. The D.C.L.R. made an inspection and once again upheld the claim of pre-emption by the petitioners. In appeal the Addl. Collector found and held that the spot inspection was not done properly and the order of the D.C.L.R. also suffered from errors. The Addl. Collector, accordingly, set aside the order passed by the D.C.L.R. and rejected the petitioners claim of pre-emption. The petitioner then took the matter before the Board of Revenue in revision. 4. At this stage Section 32A was introduced in the Land Ceiling Act which was later amended retrospectively from the date of its introduction. The insertion of Section 32A of the Act and its later amendment caused a lot of confusion in this matter that was at that time pending before the Board of Revenue. 5. Finally, the matter was heard before the Board and the Addl. Member by resolution, dated 17.1.1989 found and held that the purchaser Gulat Yadav was equally an adjoining raiyat and, therefore, the petitioner could not maintain the claim of preemption against him. 5. Finally, the matter was heard before the Board and the Addl. Member by resolution, dated 17.1.1989 found and held that the purchaser Gulat Yadav was equally an adjoining raiyat and, therefore, the petitioner could not maintain the claim of preemption against him. The Board accordingly rejected the petitioners claim of preemption. 6. Mr. Pandey assailed the finding of the Board and strenuously referred to the report of the spot inspection by the D.C.L.R. and various other materials. 7. On hearing Mr. Pandey and on going through the orders passed by the authorities under the Act and the materials on record I am satisfied that the Board of Revenue arrived at a proper finding taking into account all the relevant materials. The dispute of pre-emption is clearly concluded toy a finding of fact that does not merit any interference in a writ proceeding. 8. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.