Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2428 (PAT)

Rambati Devi v. State Of Bihar

2010-11-03

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Katihar, the Additional Collector, Katihar and the Commissioner, Purnea Division by which the pre-emption application of respondent no. 5 has been allowed on the ground that he is adjoining raiyat and co-sharer of plot nos. 841, 842 and 854, measuring 64 decimals. 2. The facts are that the petitioner had purchased the land on 22.02.2001 and after which pre-emption application was filed by respondent no. 5. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the lands in question are his bakhast lands and he has built a house on the portion of the disputed plot. The lands purchased measure 32 decimals. It is also not disputed that in the vicinity, there are 3-4 houses, one belonging to respondent no. 5, the other belonging to Rukhmani Devi and one of Ram Nath Tiwary and, therefore, the petitioner claims that the nature of the land is homestead and there are several houses around the plot purchased and as such the land in question cannot be treated to be the agricultural land. 4. The case of the respondent, on the other hand, is that he is the adjoining raiyat of the vended land and a co-sharer having half share in the lands that have been transferred in favour of the petitioner. It is asserted that the petitioner has built his house after the pre-emption application was filed and is living in the house and is also using the land in question for agricultural purposes. In support of this submission, the respondent relies on Annexure-B, which is the report of the spot verification by the Circle Officer, Manshahi. The report of the Circle Officer indicates that ^RfaH *f few ^3r#T W^m TJcf tM ^Ht it %W ^T tl Pwiftd "Cefte 3 ^raterer -aft Tjfjr 3 tM ^ iPt srferaurc ^ ^tfte ^ ii which indicates that the land in question is being utilized for the purposes of agriculture. 5. All the three Courts have found that the respondent is the adjoining raiyat of the land in question and are not homestead lands, which is capable of being utilized for the agricultural purposes. 6. Considering this aspect of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ application and it is accordingly dismissed.