Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 933 (JHR)

Md. Jasmuddin Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2009-07-06

SUSHIL HARKAULI

body2009
Order I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner purchased small piece of land. The private respondent claimed the right of pre-emption in respect of the land under Section 16 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 which gives the right of pre-emption to a raiyat of adjoining agricultural area if the transfer is of agricultural land. 3. By the impugned order dated 22.5.07 passed in Revision Case No. 37/2006 the Court of Revenue, Jharkhand found that the petitioner had not been able to provide any evidence in support of his contention that the disputed land is surrounded by a number of residential, buildings and therefore petitioner's contention that the land was not agricultural land could not be accepted. The petitioner's contention of the land being non-agricultural on the ground of constructing a temporary hut on that land by the petitioner was also repelled. It was found that the pre-emptor was raiyat of the adjoining agricultural area and therefore the land purchased by the petitioner which falls within the definition of land, as given in the aforesaid Act, was subject to the right of pre-emption of the private respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the findings which are essentially findings of pure fact and are not capable of interference in this writ jurisdiction. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of Division Bench reported in 1997(2) PLJR 287 (Nathuni Yadav vs. State of Bihar) in which the Division Bench has held that there is no equity in favour of pre-emptor and the Division Bench refused to exercise its discretionary and equitable writ jurisdiction at the instance of petitioner who was claiming the right of pre-emption against a landless purchaser. 6. The said authority does not amount to holding that this Court or any Court, for that matter, can allow the equity to override the law. The statute must be given its due effect by the Courts till such time as the legislature decides to modify the law. 7. Considering the facts given above and the findings recorded, the decision of the Board of Revenue is in conformity with the law. This writ petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.