Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1054 (JHR)

Hira Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2010-12-01

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2010
ORDER Pradeep Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for Petitioner and learned Counsel for Respondents. 2. By this LPA the Appellant has challenged the judgment passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in WP (C) No. 2947 of 2003 dated 14.12.2009 wherein the writ application was dismissed with a finding that the finding arrived at by the D.C. Land Reform and subsequently affirmed by the Member Board of Revenue requires no interference. 3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellant that the DC Land Reform wrongly came to a finding that Sona Devi was the co-sharer and hence she had a claim under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reform (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. He has further argued that since the Appellant is always a contiguous raiyat and hence between two raiyats. DC Land Reform wrongly gave a finding that Sona Devi was the closure raiyat and as such finding is bad. He has relied on the same judgment of the Patna High Court with regard to the fact that between two raiyats there cannot be a finding as to who is closure. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that it is not a case of two raiyats rather the admitted case is that the Appellant purchased land from Chikni Devi an adjacent raiyat, but in fact Chikni Devi and Sona Devi had purchased the lands in dispute jointly 0.97 decimal of land on 19.2.1994 by sale deed No. 3008. Since related to each other and they were held to be co-sharer and as such it is not the case of two adjacent raiyat, rather two co-sharer. As such, Petitioner case was rightly dismissed by the DC, Land Reform and confirmed by Member Board of Revenue. 5. Since related to each other and they were held to be co-sharer and as such it is not the case of two adjacent raiyat, rather two co-sharer. As such, Petitioner case was rightly dismissed by the DC, Land Reform and confirmed by Member Board of Revenue. 5. After hearing both the parties and going through the provision of 16(3) of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, which reads as under: When any transfer of land is made after the commencement of this Act to any person other than a co-sharer or a raiyat of adjoining land, any co-sharer of the transferor or any raiyat holding land adjoining the land transferred shall be entitled, within three months of the date of registration of the document of the transfer, to make an application before the Collector in the prescribed manner for the transfer of the land to him on the terms and conditions contained in the said deed. 6. In that view of the matter, since Sona Devi was co-purchaser of the disputed sale deed and as such she had the first claim over the land and in that view of the matter, the DC Land Reform or Member Board, Revenue has rightly arrived at the finding, which was confirmed by the writ Court. 7. In that view of the matter, we find no illegality in the impugned judgment and it requires no interference in the instant LPA. 8. Accordingly, this application is dismissed having no merit. Application dismissed.