Patna High Court
Ram Shankar Prasad Singh And Ors. vs Additional Member, Board Of Revenue And ... on 4 January, 1985
Equivalent citations: 1985(33)BLJR595
JUDGMENT Birendra Prasad Sinha, J.
1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. A prayer has been made for quashing the orders contained in Annexures 2 and 3 passed by the Additional Collector on 11.11.1978 in Case No. 14/75-76 and by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue on 9.5.1980 in Case No. 444 of 1978 respectively.
2. Respondent No. 5 Smt. Ram Lakshmibati Kumari (since dead) sold 2 bighas 10 kathas 17 dhurs of land situate in village Saidpur Dallo alias Pakra appertaining to khata No. 408, plot No. 720, 952 and 956 to respondent No. 4 Dinesh Prasad Chaudhary. The sale deed was executed on 9-5-1975 and was registered on 8.5.1975. On 6-8-1975 the petitioners filed an application under Section 16 (3) of the Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition ol Surplus Land) Act, (hereafter referred to as the Act) claiming pre-emption, They claimed that they were in the boundary of the vended land. Several objections seem to have been taken by the purchaser against the petitioners' claim for pre-emption. The learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector ultimately allowed the claim of pre-emption in favour of petitioners 1, 2 and 3 and rejected the claim of petitioner No. 4 Rajit Prasad Singh. According to him petitioner No. 4 Ranjit Prasad Singh was the adjoining Raiyat of plot Nos. 720 956 and not an adjoining Raiyat in respect of plot No. 952. According to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector in a case where a joint petition had been filed the pre-emption could be allowed in respect of some even though in respect of other it was found that he was not on the boundary of each of the plots. Respondent No. 4 Dinesh Prasad Chaudhary filed an appeal and the Additional Collector by his order contained in Annexure 2 set aside the order passed by the Land Reforms, Deputy Collector. According to him unless it was found that all the petitioners were individually, separately or jointly holding lands in contiguity of the vended lands, the claim of pre-emption could not be allowed. It may be mentioned here that petitioner No. 4 Ranjit Prasad Singh had not filed any appeal against the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector nor had preferred any cross-objection before the appellate court. The finding of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector so far Ranjit Prasad Singh is concerned, therefore, became final.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the learned Additional Collector has failed to give any finding with respect to jointness of the petitioners and if the petitioners are found to be joint as claimed by them their claim could not be defeated. Learned Counsel is not correct. The learned Additional Collector has found that the petitioners have not been able to prove jointness. It is not possible for this Court to go against that finding.
4. It is well established by now that if two or more persons want to join hands in filing an application under Section 16 (3) of the Act it is necessary for all the applicants to establish that all of them are either co-sharers or adjoining raiyats of all the vended plots. If any one of them cannot claim preemption separately it is not possible for them to claim pre-emption jointly. I am supported by a Bench decision of this Court in Sukhram Singh v. The State of Bihar.. So far the present case is concerned the matters are even worst, In this case four persons have jointly claimed pre-emption. As stated above the claim of three of them namely, petitioners 1 to 3 was allowed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector but the claim of petitioner No. 4 was disallowed, and that order against petitioner No. 4 became final as no appeal was filed. The Additional Collector has found that none of the petitioners are Individually and jointly in the boundary of each of the plots in question. That being so, claim of pre-emption could not be maintained and the learned Additional Collector has rightly disallowed his claim. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in Basudeo Chaudhary v. The State of Bihar 1984 B.B.C.J.C. 45. and has submitted that a joint claim for pre-emption is maintainable and can be allowed. In this case both the preemptors were of the same class and were entitled to equal shares. If it is not that a joint petition cannot be allowed in any circumstance. It is found that all the persons joining the petition are in the boundary of each of the vended land separately or even jointly, their claim may be allowed but so far the present case is concerned the finding is otherwise and in this case the claim of the petitioners has been rightly disallowed. The result is that this application fails and is dismissed but without costs.