Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1401 (JHR)

Abala Mandalani v. State of Jharkhand

2015-11-04

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER : Aggrieved by order dated 11.07.2003, in Revenue Case No. 25 of 2003, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, Most. Musri Mandalani who was the second wife of Rash Mohan Mandal sold land in C.S. plot no. 2303 by a registered deed in favour of respondent no. 6. The land in question was recorded in the name of one Bhuban Mandal who died in the year, 1940. Ashu Mandal and Rash Mohan Mandal were his sons. After sale of 7 decimals of land in favour of respondent no. 6 on 10.09.2001, the petitioners filed application under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Lands) Act, 1961 and the said application has been registered as L.C. Case No. 08 of 200102. The said application was dismissed on 22.07.2002 and the appeal as well as revision preferred by the petitioners have been dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent no. 6 is neither adjoining raiyat nor a cosharer and therefore, the application filed by the petitioners who are daughters of Rash Mohan Mandal from his first wife should have been allowed. 4. A perusal of the order passed in L.C. Case No. 8 of 200102 would indicate that the trial court noticed that the petitioners did not disclose whether after the death of their father, their mother namely, Rudni Mandalani was alive or not. The petitioners also failed to establish that even after their marriage they remained cosharer in the properties in question. The appellate court has also recorded a finding that the petitioners did not produce evidence that they were exercising their right over the ancestral properties even after their marriage. The respondent no. 6 is the son of Sadhu Mandal who is cosharer, is not in dispute. The sale deed was registered after the mandatory service of notice under Section 26(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The revisional authority has recorded a finding that none of the parties is a land holder. Since the disputed land is “Gharbari” and not a “homestead” land, the provisions under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Lands) Act, 1961 would not apply in the present case. The revisional authority has recorded a finding that none of the parties is a land holder. Since the disputed land is “Gharbari” and not a “homestead” land, the provisions under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Lands) Act, 1961 would not apply in the present case. The revisional authority noticed the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of “Fakir Mohammad. vs. Salahuddin and others”, AIR 1975 Patna 119, to hold that “homestead” land under the Act must be homestead land of a land holder. I find that three Courts have concurrently disbelieved the case setup by the petitioners. The petitioners failed to asserts and establish that even after their marriage they remained co-sharer or adjoining raiyats. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.