Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1135 (JHR)

Kamla Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2023-09-11

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2023
ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. I.A. No. 7912 of 2023 in LPA No. 269 of 2022 The appellants have filed this interlocutory application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. In view of the statements made in this interlocutory application, the delay of 17 days in filing this Appeal is condoned. 3. I.A. No. 7912 of 2023 is, accordingly, allowed. I.A. No. 7229 of 2023 in LPA No. 269 of 2022 I.A. No.7230 of 2023 in LPA No. 271 of 2022 4. The appellants have filed I.A. No. 7229 of 2023 in LPA No. 269 of 2022 and I.A. No.7230 of 2023 in LPA No.271 of 2022 for deletion of the name of appellant no.1, namely, Kamla Devi from Memo of Appeals who died on 04th October 2022 leaving behind legal heirs who are already on record as appellant nos.2 to 5 in these Appeals. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 7229 of 2023 in LPA No. 269 of 2022 and I.A. No.7230 of 2023 in LPA No.271 of 2022 are allowed. LPA No. 269 of 2022 and LPA No. 271 of 2022 6. Pre-emption Case No. 6 of 2006-07 was instituted by Manbahal Singh under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 against sale and registration of a piece of land comprised in Plot Nos. 1434, 1436, 1428 and 1390 in Khata No. 55 of Mouza Bare, total area measuring about 0.92 acres, by Laxmi Devi by a registered deed dated 27th March 2006 in favor of Saroj Munda, Karwan Munda and Arun Munda sons of Vishwanth Munda of village Bare within Budhmu PS within the district of Ranchi for a consideration amount of Rs.80,500/-. Manbahal Singh who was the husband of Kamla Devi and father of Nawal Nath Singh, Laxmi Nath Singh, Balmukund Singh and Satendra Nath Singh, all appellants before us, claimed himself a co-sharer of the khatiyani raiyat and also an adjoining raiyat. The case set up by him in brief was that Laxmi Devi wife of Ram Narayan Yadav had purchased 1.84 acres land through sale letter no. 12397 dated 29th December 1992 from Nirmala Devi and Khileshwari Devi, and Laxmi Devi suppressing the aforesaid fact executed a sale-deed dated 27th March 2006 in favor of opposite party nos. The case set up by him in brief was that Laxmi Devi wife of Ram Narayan Yadav had purchased 1.84 acres land through sale letter no. 12397 dated 29th December 1992 from Nirmala Devi and Khileshwari Devi, and Laxmi Devi suppressing the aforesaid fact executed a sale-deed dated 27th March 2006 in favor of opposite party nos. 1 to 3, ignoring his request and claim being an adjoining raiyat. 7. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms in his order dated 31st Octoer 2011 passed in Pre-emption Case No. 06 of 2006-07 recorded a finding that Manbahala Singh was a khatiyani raiyat and co-sharer of Nirmala Devi. On the other hand, Saroj Munda, Karwan Munda and Arun Munda were held not an adjoining raiyat or co-sharers of the seller and, accordingly, the application under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act was allowed and a direction was issued to the seller Laxmi Devi and the buyers, namely, Saroj Munda, Karwan Munda and Arun Munda to execute a sale-deed within one month in favor of Manbahal Singh. However, this order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms was set aside by an order dated 15th June 2012 passed by the Additional Collector at Ranchi. In the order dated 15th June 2012, there is a reference about sale of lands in Khata No. 55 on 26th May 1982, 29th June 1982 and 8th October 1983 in favor of Laxmi Devi. There is also a mention about Title Suit No. 59 of 1998. The Additional Collector has further taken note of a fact that the witnesses did not claim that Saroj Munda is not an adjoining raiyat. 8. The Additional Member of the Board of Revenue recorded in his order dated 9th April 2014 that the pre-emptor is not an adjoining raiyat of the lands transferred by Laxmi Devi through sale-deed dated 27th March 2006. He has further recorded a finding that the pre-emptor had a piece of a land adjacent to Plot No. 1390 and not adjoining to Plot Nos. 1434, 1436 and 1428 and, therefore, the application under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act was not maintainable because a partial pre-emption cannot be allowed. 1434, 1436 and 1428 and, therefore, the application under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act was not maintainable because a partial pre-emption cannot be allowed. The Additional Member of the Board of Revenue has held as under: “The claim of the petitioner surfaced in 2006 Laxmi Devi when Laxmi Devi transferred 184 decimals of land through two separate deeds to the Opposite Parties. In Ram Pravesh Singh Vs. The Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, 1995 (1) PLJR 764 it was held that pre-emptor must prove that he is either co-sharer of the transferor or the adjoining raiyat of all the plots transferred. The present application is frivolous in the sense that the petitioner is not a co- sharer of Laxmi Devi who had transferred the land to the opposite parties. On the issue of adjoining raiyat the contents of the deed on Page No. 5 executed by Laxmi Devi shows the boundary of plots as follows: i) Boundary Raiyats of Plot Nos. 1434, 1436, 1428 East Most. Kunta Devi West Bhuneshwar Munda North Dhnanjay Singh South Most. Kunla Devi ii) Boundary Raiyats of Plot Nos. 1390 East Manbahal Singh West Road North Manbahal Singh South Manbahal Singh In this way, the pre-emptor has miserably failed to prove that he was the co-sharer of Laxmi Devi or the adjoining raiyat of all the plots transferred. It has been admitted that he was co-sharer of the vender of Laxmi Devi. In the instant case, the petitioner holds land adjacent only to plot no. 1390. In this way, the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable against other three plots and partial pre-emption cannot be allowed. A perusal of the said deeds dated 1992 and 2006 showed consideration amount of Rs. 49000/- and Rs. 80,500/- respectively. But the petitioner deposited ten percent of 80,500 @ Rs.8050 only. It is thus conclusively proved that the petitioner's claim is related to the transfers made in the year 2006. This further strengthens the point that there is no truth in the claim of co-sharer because Laxmi Devi was a stranger to him. In Ram Prasad Sao & Ors Vs. But the petitioner deposited ten percent of 80,500 @ Rs.8050 only. It is thus conclusively proved that the petitioner's claim is related to the transfers made in the year 2006. This further strengthens the point that there is no truth in the claim of co-sharer because Laxmi Devi was a stranger to him. In Ram Prasad Sao & Ors Vs. State of Bihar, 2008 (2) JCR 296 (Jhr), the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court held that and application under Section 16 (3) of the Act cannot be entertained if land is being transferred to another person for a purpose not connected with agriculture. On Page 12 of the Deed dated 27.03.2006 mentions that the purchaser could construct a house develop orchard or erect a well over the land being transferred. Evidently the transfer in the instant case was not made with a purpose connected with agriculture. As such, the application under Section 16 (3) should not have been entertained by the Lower Court. In view of the aforesaid facts, the findings of the Additional Collector, Ranchi do not require any interference. In the result, the petitions are dismissed.” 9. The submission made by Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, the learned counsel that it was not necessary for the pre-emptor to challenge the sale-deed dated 29th December 1992 because the same was duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Ranchi only on 8th October 2009 is not necessary to deal with. The law on the subject has been authoritatively dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Radhakisan Laxminarayan Toshniwal v. Shridhar Ramchandra Alshi” AIR 1960 SC 1368 . Moreover, this issue is not germane to the controversy which surfaced during hearing of Pre-emption Appeal No. 12R15 and 13R15 of 2011-12. The main opposition raised by Laxmi Devi and the buyers was that Manbahal Singh was not an adjoining raiyat and this issue stands concluded by concurrent findings of fact by the appellate and revisional authorities. 10. For better appreciation of the controversy involved in the matter, the writ Court referred to genealogy of ex-landlord and held as under: “The petitioners have filed supplementary affidavit, wherein, genealogy of ex-landlord is described, which is as under: From this genealogy, it transpires that Laxmi Devi is not the co-sharer of Nirmala Devi and Khileshwari Devi. Laxmi Devi was the first purchaser in the year 1992 from Nirmala Devi and Khileshwari Devi and thereafter respondent nos. Laxmi Devi was the first purchaser in the year 1992 from Nirmala Devi and Khileshwari Devi and thereafter respondent nos. 7 to 9 were the second purchasers from Laxmi Devi. The pre-emption application was filed in the year 2006, and the petitioner had failed to make his claim at the time of execution of first deed in the year 1992. The petitioner failed to file a case in the year 1992 and, accordingly, he lost his right to claim the execution of the deed as pre-emption case was filed much later than the year 1992. As per Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961, pre-emptor must be co-sharer or any raiyat of the adjoining land and an application needs to be made within three months from the date of registration of the document and 10% of the purchase money to be deposited within the prescribed period. The petitioner has failed to file the pre-emption case within time. The petitioner is also not the co-sharer of Laxmi Devi. Respondent nos. 7 to 9 are the second purchasers. The condition precedent about maintainability of application would be the date of registration. The authority or court of law is not supposed to deviate from statute and onus is upon the petitioner to prove that he has acted in terms of the statute. The petitioner has failed to satisfy the condition precedent under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961. It is well settled proposition of law that interpretation of any statute needs to be done in view of the provisions made therein and where statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in manner prescribed and not in any other way. The appellate court and revisional court have rightly considered Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961. The petitioner has not filed pre-emption case within the time and he is not the co-sharer of Laxmi Devi, which transpires from the genealogy provided by the petitioner by way of filing supplementary affidavit. This Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the appellate court as well as the revisional court and, accordingly, the same do not require any interference by this Court.” 11. This Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the appellate court as well as the revisional court and, accordingly, the same do not require any interference by this Court.” 11. A right to pre-emption is conferred through the statutory provisions under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act and there can be no doubt that a pre-emptor can approach the Court to challenge transfer of land on the grounds mentioned under section 16(3). There can also be no doubt that the statutory right of the pre-emptor should not be denied by the Court merely because considerable time was consumed in litigation. However, a writ Court shall not enter into the realm of appreciation of evidence and must be extremely cautious to disturb concurrent findings of fact by the statutory/revenue authorities. Now in a situation where there is some doubt regarding a finding of fact the writ Court shall bear in mind that pre-emption is a weak right and the opposite parties are well entitled in law to oppose a petition for pre-emption by adopting all legal means. 12. In our opinion, the writ Court rightly refused to enter into the arena of appreciation of evidence. 13. Therefore, finding no error in the writ Court’s order dated 15th April 2020, L.P.A No. 269 of 2022 and L.P.A No. 271 of 2022 are dismissed.