JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder orders dated 15.02.2008 passed in Pre-emption Case No.05 of 2004-05, order dated 23.03.2011 passed in Pre-emption Appeal No.02 R-15 of 2008-09 and order dated 18/23.07.2013 passed in Revision Case No.17 of 2011 have been assailed. 2. This Court has found from the record that the notices were issued upon the Respondent No.5 through registered cover with A/D as well as by ordinary process, as would appear from order dated 21.07.2016. The Respondent No.5 has appeared, as would appear from the office note and also filed Vakalatnama. The matter was taken up on 19.08.2021 but non represented the concerned respondent. However, on 21.10.2021, Mr. Mritunjay Choudhary, learned counsel for the Respondent No.5 had appeared and sought for two weeks’ time since he was not ready with the brief and accordingly, on his prayer, time was allowed. Again, on 16.12.2021, appearance on behalf of Respondent No.5 was made, being represented by Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel. The matter, thereafter, was listed on 21.02.2022, but none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.5 on that date. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the writ petition is of the year 2013 and the Respondent No.5 is not appearing, therefore, deems it fit and proper to proceed with the hearing of the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition has been heard. 3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, read hereunder as :- The land in question situated in Mauza Chakla, Khata No.128, Plot No.122 Area 0.57 acre, out of which 0.10 acre has been sold out in favour of one Sri Jagdish Prasad Sahu, son of Khemlal Sahu, opposite party No.1/writ petitioner, for consideration amount of Rs.61,000/- by virtue of registered sale deed No.12904 dated 23.09.2004. The applicant/Respondent No.5, subsequent thereto, has filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Ceiling (Fixation of Surplus Area) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 1961), after depositing the required amount as per the aforesaid provision. The concerned authority, has issued notice to the opposite party, the petitioner herein. The applicant/Respondent No.5, subsequent thereto, has filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Ceiling (Fixation of Surplus Area) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 1961), after depositing the required amount as per the aforesaid provision. The concerned authority, has issued notice to the opposite party, the petitioner herein. The petitioner, being opposite party No.1 before the authority concerned, has submitted its reply making objection to the application filed under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 since the applicant is neither adjacent Raiyat nor co-sharer of the land in question. The ground of the applicant that she has purchased the land by virtue of sale deed executed on 16.10.1996, has seriously been disputed on the ground that such registered deed has never been executed, since no document to that effect has ever been produced before the authority deciding the application filed under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961. The original authority has decided the issue by passing the order on 15.02.2008 in Pre-emption Case No.05/2004-05 holding therein that the very sale of the land in favour of the petitioner is in the teeth of the provision of Section 16 of the Act, 1961 and, as such, the very transfer has been held to be illegal. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 15.02.2008, has preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, however, the same had been dealt with by the Additional Collector, Ranchi being Pre-emption Appeal Case No.02 R-15/2008-09 by taking the ground that the very issue of locus, came to have obtained by the applicant, on the basis of registered sale deed dated 16.10.1996 is having no foundation since such registered sale deed has never been executed and further, the land which has been purchased by the petitioner is having no agricultural background. The appellate authority, vide order dated 23.03.2011, has dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-prosecution affirming the order passed by the original authority dated 15.02.2008 in Pre-emption Case No.05/2004-05. The petitioner, thereafter, has preferred revision before the revisional authority, i.e., Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi, being Board Revision Case No.17 of 2011, reiterating the ground, which has been agitated before the original as well as appellate authority but the revision has been dismissed and, thereby the writ petition has been filed questioning the orders passed by the original authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority. 4. The ground has been taken that the provision of Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 stipulates about the pre-requisite conditions for maintaining an application under the aforesaid provision of law, i.e., the applicant is required to be adjacent Raiyat or co-sharer and land must be raiyati. The objection to the same can be filed, if the adjacent land is not sold out in favour of the co-sharer, the application is to be filed by the adjacent Raiyat or co-sharer by depositing 10% of the consideration amount within three months from the date of registration, as would appear from the provision of Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961, which reads hereunder as:- “16. Restriction on future acquisition by transfer, etc. – (1) … … … (2) … … … (3)(i) When any transfer of land is made after the commencement of the 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 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. Provided that no such application shall be entertained by the Collector unless the purchase money together with a sum equal to ten percent thereof is deposited in the prescribed manner within the said period. (ii) On such deposit being made the co-sharer or the raiyat shall be entitled to be put in possession of the land irrespective of the fact that the application under clause (i) is pending for decision. Provided that where the application is rejected, the co-sharer or the raiyat, as the case may be, shall be evicted from the land and possession there of shall be restored to the transferee and the transferee shall be entitled to be paid a sum equal to ten per cent of the purchase money out of the deposit made under clause(i). Provided that where the application is rejected, the co-sharer or the raiyat, as the case may be, shall be evicted from the land and possession there of shall be restored to the transferee and the transferee shall be entitled to be paid a sum equal to ten per cent of the purchase money out of the deposit made under clause(i). (iii) If the application is allowed, the Collector shall by an order direct the transferee to convey the land in favour of the applicant by executing and registering a document of transfer within a period to be specified in the order and, if he neglects or refuses to comply with the direction, the procedure prescribed in Order 21, Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), shall be, so far as may be, followed.” 5. The petitioner has purchased the land situated in Mauza Chakla, Khata No.128, Plot No.122 comprising of an area of 0.10 acre. The applicant/Respondent No.5 filed objection to the said sale before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms for invalidating the transfer of the land being in violation to the provision of Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961, since, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 cannot be considered either to be the adjacent Raiyat or co-sharer. The concerned authority has issued notice to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 asking their response as to why the application be not allowed. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 had appeared and took the ground about non-maintaining the aforesaid application filed under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 on the ground that the claim which is being made is based upon the transfer of the land by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 16.10.1996, which has never been executed and, therefore, the applicant is having no locus to question the sale made in favour of the opposite party Nos. 1 (petitioner herein) and 2. 6. Another ground has been taken about the nature of the land which, according to the petitioner, is not agricultural one. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, however, has negated the ground taken by the petitioner and passed an order allowing the pre-emption application invalidating the transfer of the land made in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 15.02.2008. 7. 6. Another ground has been taken about the nature of the land which, according to the petitioner, is not agricultural one. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, however, has negated the ground taken by the petitioner and passed an order allowing the pre-emption application invalidating the transfer of the land made in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 15.02.2008. 7. The aforesaid order has been questioned before the appellate authority as also before the revisional authority but both the authorities have declined to interfere with the order passed by the original authority. 8. The contention which is being raised about the locus of the Respondent No.5, who is claiming title over the land in question for maintaining the application filed under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 is on the basis of the transfer of land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 16.10.1996 which has seriously been disputed by the petitioner herein before the original, appellate as also the revisional authority but the same has not been considered. The plea has been taken herein also in questioning the order passed by the authorities concerned. 9. Therefore, the core issue to be decided in this case is as to whether there is any transfer by virtue of sale deed dated 16.10.1996 in favour of the Respondent No.5, if yes, then certainly the application filed under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 will be held to be maintainable, but if no, such application will not be held to be maintainable for want of locus. This Court, therefore, is required to consider about the stand of transfer of land by virtue of sale deed dated 16.10.1996. 10. Mr. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the question of transfer of aforesaid land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 16.10.1996 is itself in dispute since it has itself been contradicted by the Respondent No.5, as would appear from the stand/ground taken by the concerned respondent by filing show cause before the appellate authority, wherein it has been stated that the land has come in the title of the concerned respondent by virtue of sada deed of exchange. Therefore, submission has been made that the question of transfer of land through registered sale deed itself is in dispute, but, the same has not been considered by the revisional authority and, therefore, the order impugned suffers from perversity and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The second issue has been raised about the nature of the land which, according to the writ petitioner, is not agricultural one. 11. Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-II, appearing for the respondent State of Jharkhand, however, has tried to defend the order passed by the authorities concerned but no satisfactory reply has been furnished as to why the consideration has not been given by the revisional authority with respect to the contradictory stand having been taken by the Respondent No.5 with respect to the mode of transfer of the land, since before the original authority, the husband of the Respondent No.5, namely, Ramanandan Prasad Singh, has deposed at para 3 and 4 of his deposition that his wife (Respondent No.5) has acquired the land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 16.10.1996, while before the appellate authority the ground has been taken about the transfer of the aforesaid land by virtue of sada deed of exchange made in favour of Respondent No.5, which is evident from the show cause filed by Respondent No.5, as appended as Annexure-9 to the instant writ petition. Learned State counsel, after going through the documents, i.e., the show cause filed on behalf of the Respondent No.5 before the appellate authority, is fair enough to submit that the contradictory stand has been taken by the concerned respondent. 12. The question, therefore, arises that why due consideration has not been given by the revisional authority, in a situation, where the very basis of claim application filed under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 has itself been disputed by the applicant by taking two contradictory plea, i.e., before one authority plea has been taken about transfer of land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 16.10.1996 while before another authority the plea has been taken that the transfer of land has been done by virtue of sada deed of exchange. Therefore, the question of very sanctity of order is to be considered as to why the said contradiction has not been taken into consideration by the revisional authority. 13. Therefore, the question of very sanctity of order is to be considered as to why the said contradiction has not been taken into consideration by the revisional authority. 13. It requires to refer herein that since the writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the orders, wherein there is concurrent finding up to the level of the revisional authority and the petitioner being aggrieved, is seeking the writ of certiorari by quashing the orders impugned. 14. The jurisdiction conferred to this Court for issuance of writ of certiorari although is very limited since the same is to be issued in a case where there is jurisdictional error or if there is error apparent on the face of the record, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Syed Yakoob Vrs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Others [A.I.R. 1964 SC 477], in particular at paragraph 7, wherein it has been held as follows:- “7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or properly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity, be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque [ (1955) 1 SCR 1104 ] Nagandra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam [(1958) SCR 1240] and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh [ AIR 1960 SC 1168 ]” In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Others, [A.I.R. 1955 SC 233], the Hon'ble Apex Court, with regard to the character and scope of the writ of certiorari and the conditions under which it can be issued, at paragraph-21 has observed which is being reproduced hereinbelow : “21. … … …, the following propositions may be taken as established : (1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. … … …, the following propositions may be taken as established : (1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Certiorari will also be issued when the court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous. This is on the principle that a court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right, and when the legislature does not choose to confer a right of appeal against that decision, it would be defeating its purpose and policy, if a superior court were to rehear the case on the evidence, and substitute its own findings in certiorari. These propositions are well-settled and are not in dispute… … …” In Sawarn Singh and Another v. State of Punjab & Others, [ (1976) 2 SCC 868 ], their Lordships, while considering the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari, has been pleased to hold at paragraph nos.12 and 13 as under: “12. Before dealing with the contentions canvassed, it will be useful to notice the general principles indicating the limits of the jurisdiction of the certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. A writ of certiorari can be issued only in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction. The Court exercising special jurisdiction under Article 226 is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. As was pointed out by this Court in Syed Yakoob's case, “this limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. The Court exercising special jurisdiction under Article 226 is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. As was pointed out by this Court in Syed Yakoob's case, “this limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be.” 13. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice.” Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court dealing with the issue of issuance of writ of certiorari in General Manager, Electrical Rengali Hydro Electric Project, Orissa and Others v. Giridhari Sahu and Others, [ (2019) 10 SCC 695 ] wherein the factual aspect involved therein is that there is concurrent finding from the level of the Tribunal up to the level of the intra-court appeal by affirming the order passed by the Tribunal wherein the Award has been passed in favour of the workman. But, the aforesaid order has been questioned before the Hon’ble Apex Court by taking the plea that right from very beginning, i.e., from the level of Tribunal up to the High Court, the evidence has not properly been considered and the Hon’ble Apex Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, has interfered with the finding recorded by the Tribunal and in consequence thereof, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court by holding therein that although there is limited jurisdiction to issue writ of certiorari for quashing the order, but if there is non-consideration of the material fact, in that circumstances, the writ of certiorari is required to be issued, for ready reference the relevant paragraph is quoted hereunder as :- “28. On the conspectus of the decisions and material, we would hold as follows : the jurisdiction to issue writ of certiorari is supervisory and not appellate. The Court considering a writ application of certiorari will not don the cap of an appellate court. It will not reappreciate evidence. The writ of certiorari is intended to correct jurisdictional excesses. A writ of prohibition would issue when a tribunal or authority has not yet concluded its proceedings. Once a decision is rendered by a body amenable to certiorari jurisdiction, certiorari could be issued when a jurisdictional error is clearly established. The jurisdictional error may be from failure to observe the limits of its jurisdiction. It may arise from the procedure adopted by the body after validly assuming jurisdiction. It may act in violation of principles of natural justice. The body whose decision which comes under attack may decide a collateral fact which is also a jurisdictional fact and assume jurisdiction. Such a finding of fact is not immune from being interfered with by a writ of certiorari. As far as the finding of fact which is one within the jurisdiction of the court, it is ordinarily a matter “off bounds” for the writ court. This is for the reason that a body which has jurisdiction to decide the matter has the jurisdiction to decide it correctly or wrongly. It would become a mere error and that too an error of fact. However, gross it may amount to, it does not amount to an error of law. This is for the reason that a body which has jurisdiction to decide the matter has the jurisdiction to decide it correctly or wrongly. It would become a mere error and that too an error of fact. However, gross it may amount to, it does not amount to an error of law. An error of law which becomes vulnerable to judicial scrutiny by way of certiorari must also be one which is apparent on the face of the record. As held by this Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233 , as to what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, is a matter to be decided by the court on the facts of each case. A finding of fact which is not supported by any evidence would be perverse and in fact would constitute an error of law enabling the writ court to interfere. It is also to be noticed that if the overwhelming weight of the evidence does not support the finding, it would render the decision amenable to certiorari jurisdiction. This would be the same as a finding which is wholly unwarranted by the evidence which is what this Court has laid down (Parry & Co. Ltd. v. P.C. Pal, AIR 1970 SC 1334 ).” 15. This Court, after considering the aforesaid judgment, is of the view that the issuance of writ of certiorari is to be tested if the finding is based upon perversity. Perversity means that there is non-consideration of the factual aspect and if the order has been passed. 16. Herein, in the given facts of the case, two issues have been raised i.e., the locus of the private respondent on the ground of title which she claims by virtue of registered sale deed dated 16.10.1996 at one place i.e., before the original authority and on the basis of sada deed of exchange before the appellate authority. The second issue is about the nature of the land whether it is agricultural or not? 17. This Court is of the view that before going into the factual aspect as to whether the land in question is agricultural one or not, is required to answer the first issue so that if the Court finds that the order suffers from error, there is no need to go into agricultural issue at this stage. 18. 17. This Court is of the view that before going into the factual aspect as to whether the land in question is agricultural one or not, is required to answer the first issue so that if the Court finds that the order suffers from error, there is no need to go into agricultural issue at this stage. 18. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect as also the legal position as referred hereinabove, has gone across the impugned orders passed by the original authority, appellate authority as also the revisional authority and found therefrom that before the original authority, the husband of the Respondent No.5 has categorically stated in his deposition that the land has been transferred in favour of Respondent No.5 vide registered sale deed dated 16.10.1996, as would appear from the deposition of husband of the Respondent No.5 before the original authority, appended as Annexure-11 Series, which reads hereunder as :- ^^3- esjh iRuh us Fkkuk ua0 32] ftyk&jk¡ph esa fLFkr vkj0,l0 [kkrk la[;k&128] vkj0,l0 IykWV ua0 122 dk 19 Mh0 tehu fnukad 16-10-1996 bZ0 dks jftLVªh fcØh iV~Vk ds }kjk ekslksekr v'kuh nsoh ls [kjhn fd;k ,oa n[ky esa vkbZ vkSj vHkh Hkh n[kydkj gSA 4- esjh iRuh us tks 19 Mh0 tehu [kjhn fd;k gS] og fookfnr tehu ls lVs iwjc esa fLFkr gSA bl dFku dh iqf"V foi{kh la&,d }kjk foi{kh la&nks ds i{k esa fd;s dsokyk ls Hkh gksrh gSA^^ 19. The writ petitioner when challenged the order passed by the original/appellate authority before the revisional authority, wherein, in absolute contradiction to the earlier statement of transfer of land, the plea has been taken that the land has been transferred by virtue of sada deed of exchange, as would appear from paragraph 7 of the show cause filed by respondent No.5, which reads hereunder as:- “7. That the petitioner/Opposite Party no.1 Saroja Devi previously on 20.1.1998 a Sada Deed of Exchange had been made in between the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 in respect of adjoining land of the Opposite Party no.2 bearing R.S. Plot no.122, Khata no.128, area 19 decimals out of total area 57 decimals has been given to the Opposite Party no.1 as “Badlane”. 20. 20. This Court, after having gone through the order passed by the revisional authority, the final fact finding court under the Act, has found that there is no consideration about the said contradiction since nothing has been observed in that respect. Therefore, such contradiction of the factual aspect, according to the considered view of this Court, is considered to be perverse finding. 21. This Court, after taking into consideration the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court about the proposition to issue writ of certiorari in case of perversity of finding in a case where the order has been passed without dealing with the relevant fact and applying the aforesaid principle in the given facts of the case, since herein also contradictory facts, i.e., in one place the contention has been raised about transfer of land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 16.10.1996, while in another stage the land is said to have been transferred by virtue of sada deed of exchange, but the same having not been dealt with, as such, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is perversity in finding, therefore, deems it fit and proper to issue writ of certiorari by interfering with the order passed by the revisional authority. 22. Accordingly, the order dated 18/23.07.2013 passed in Revision Case No.17 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. In consequence thereof, the matter is remitted before the revisional authority for taking decision afresh within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in accordance with law, after calling upon the contesting respondent(s). 23. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.