Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 805 (JHR)

Kauleshwar Vishwarkarma v. State of Jharkhand

2017-05-04

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2017
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Respondent no. 5(a) &(b). 2. Both the original petitioner being the purchaser and the Respondent no.5, preemptor have died during pendency of the writ petition and are substituted by their legal heirs. Respondent no.5 instituted a Land Ceiling Case No. 9 of 2000 in the Court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Hazaribag after complying with the requirement of Section 16 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 being aggrieved by the sale of 1 decimal of land under Khata no. 45, Plot no. 2516, village Sultana through registered sale deed no. 13032 dated 9.8.2000 executed by Respondent no.6 in favour of the original petitioner for a valuable consideration of Rs.10,000/-, claiming herself as adjoining raiyat. The L.R.D.C. Hazaribag vide order dated 6.3.2001(Annexure-1) allowed the application holding the Respondent no.5 as adjoining raiyat and refuting the contention of the Purchaser/Petitioner that the piece of land is homestead instead of agricultural land. Learned L.R.D.C, Hazaribag, Respondent no.4 came to a finding on the basis of the materials produced by the applicant, such as the voter list, ration card, bank account of her mother, Gulabi Devi, gift deed and agreement of sale executed by the vendor of the petitioner in respect of the same disputed piece of land on 25.2.1996 as also copy of the Khatian that she is the adjacent raiyat and co-sharer. He also came to the finding that nature of the land is agricultural and it falls within village Sultana. Opposite Party/petitioner was directed to transfer the piece of land within a period of 15 days. The Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Hazaribag in Appeal Case No. 5 of 2001-02 instituted by the original petitioner did not find any reason to differ with the findings of the Learned L.R.D.C, Hazaribag and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 3.9.2002 (Annexure-2). The Land Ceiling Revision No. 12 of 2003 preferred by the aggrieved petitioner before the Member, Board of Revenue at Ranchi, Jharkhand has also been rejected by the impugned order dated 27.6.2003 on the ground of delay of 5 months and failure to implead the vendor Respondent no. 6 herein, who was also proper party in the proceedings. 3. Petitioner has assailed the revisional order dated 27.6.2003 (Annexure-5) passed by the Respondent no.2. 6 herein, who was also proper party in the proceedings. 3. Petitioner has assailed the revisional order dated 27.6.2003 (Annexure-5) passed by the Respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laboured to press home that the delay in filing revision was on account of her ill health. Medical prescription is enclosed as Annexure-4. However, the same was not produced before the Revisional Authority. It is further submitted that non-impleadment of the vendor could not defeat the challenge made by the petitioner in the revision petition as the vendor was not a necessary party against whom petitioner sought any relief. Absence of the vendor should not have persuaded the Revisional Authority to dismiss the revision on that ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the piece of land is having an area of 1 decimal only and Respondents have not been able to establish that it is in the nature of agricultural land. He has also referred to the submission of some of the witnesses of the Preemptor who also have averred that land in question is a 'Tanr' and adjacent to it several houses have been constructed. Petitioner has not been able to show any other admissible documents to substantiate its contention that the land in question do not fall in the category of agricultural land but was homestead land. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent no.5 has defended the impugned order. He submits that Preemptor is definitely the adjacent raiyat and co-sharer owning 4 decimals of land in the same plot. If she is the co-sharer and adjacent raiyat of the land in question, the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Act of 1961 are fulfilled. Preemptor has made application after deposit of 10% of the consideration amount of the sale deed within time. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. If the ingredients of Section 16(3) of the Act of 1961 are satisfied, this Court should not interfere with the impugned order at Annexure-5 dated 27.6.2003. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that petitioner is in continuous possession of the 1 decimal of the land conveyed to her through sale deed in question since its execution. 6. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and relevant material facts pleaded including the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that petitioner is in continuous possession of the 1 decimal of the land conveyed to her through sale deed in question since its execution. 6. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and relevant material facts pleaded including the impugned order. Perusal of the impugned order show that inferior Authorities have consistently upheld the finding that Preemptor is the co-sharer and adjacent raiyat of the piece of land sold to the petitioner. The findings of Respondent no.4 and 3 in land ceiling case and appeal are also consistent and clear so far as the nature of land is concerned. The application was also made well within time after execution of the sale deed with necessary pre-deposit of purchase money together with 10% of the consideration amount of the sale deed. The Revisional Authority has also found no explanation for the delay in filing the revision petition on the part of the petitioner as no such proof of ill health or treatment was produced before the Revisional Authority. 7. In such state of consistent facts, petitioner has failed to dislodge the findings or question the decision on any point of law in the present writ petition. Though the right of the Preemptor is considered to be a weak right hedged with the conditions prescribed under Section 16 of the Act of 1961, but if the Preemptor has been able to satisfy the ingredients incorporated therein, there is no reason why she should not succeed. Therefore, no grounds are made out for interference in the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.