Jharkhand High Court
Sarveshwar Mahto And Others S/O Late ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 July, 2018
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.3804 of 2002
Sarveshwar Mahto and others S/o late Mitan Mahto, resident
of Village - Tangtona, P.S.- Kashmar, District- Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand .
2. Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Additional Collector, Land Reforms, Bokaro.
4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bermo at Tenughat.
5. Kandan Mahto, son of Late Bonu Mahto allias Banu Mahto,
resident of Village- Nawadih, at present residing in Village-
Tangtona (Tola- Teliadih), P.S.- Kashmar, District- Bokaro.
6. Kaushalya, W/o Late Bhisham Mahto (One of original
vendors who is dead and substituted)
7. Bhulia Kumari (Minor) daughter of Late Bhisham Mahto.
8. Mantu Mahto (Minor) S/o Late Bhisham Mahto, both under
the guardianship of Mos't Kaushalya mother and guardian,
Resident of Village- Lipu, P.O.- Bhaski, P.S.- Jaridih, District-
Bokaro. ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. M. L. K. Chitra, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate
---
14/24.07.2018 Heard Mr. M. L. K. Mitra, counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Ravi Kumar, counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Nobody appears on behalf of the private respondents.
4. This writ petition has been filed for challenging the order passed by Additional Member, Board of Revenue in Board Revision Case No. 87 of 1998 which was subsequently re-numbered as Board Revision Case No. 55 of 2001 after the records were transferred to the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 17.01.1998 passed by the Additional Collector, Bokaro in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 6 of 1994 as well as the order passed by learned Land Reform Deputy Collector , Bermo at Tenughat passed in Land Ceiling Case No. 1 of 1993-94.
25. Counsel for the petitioner submits as under:
(a) The petitioner had filed an application for pre-emption in respect of the land covered by sale-deed no. 4819 dated 22.12.1989 situated in Bermo, Bokaro.
(b) Counsel for the petitioner submits that Khata No. 5 and Khata No. 9 of Khewat No. 2 of Mouza Tangtona were recorded in the Revisional survey record of rights in the name of Kanhaiya Mahto and Bhikha Mahto son of Gajo Mahto. Bhikha Mahto died issueless and the entire property devolved upon Kanhaiya Mahto. Kanhaiya Mahto had four sons namely, Baijnath Mahto, Dina Mahto, Jai Nath Mahto and Lagnu Mahto.
(c) He further submits that Mitan Mahto son of Dina Mahto had filed the instant writ petition who expired during the pendency of this case and was substituted by the present petitioner.
(d)Said Lagnu Mahto had two daughters namely Pusia Devi and Akli Devi. Pusia Devi died issueless and Akli Devi had one son namely, Kandan Mahto who is respondent no. 5 in this case.
(e) In the year 1965 Lagnu Mahto gifted his entire land to his two daughters Pusia Devi and Akli Devi vide registered deed no. 4776 dated 17.02.1965 measuring an area of about 12 acres.
(f) Initially, Pusia Devi and Akli Devi jointly sold 4 acres of gifted land to Remela Devi wife of the petitioner and thereafter, Pusia Devi died issueless. Subsequently, vide a registered deed no. 4819 dated 22.12.1989 husband of Pusia Devi namely, Bhisham Mahto and Akli Devi jointly transferred the remaining portion of the gifted land measuring 8 acres of land to Kandan Mahto and thus, the entire property which was gifted to Pusia Devi and Akli Devi was disposed of and was sold.
(g) After the execution of sale-deed dated 22.12.1989, the original writ petitioner filed an application for pre-emption claiming 3 himself to be a co-sharer of the vended property and he also claimed to be an adjoining raiyat of the vended property. The application for pre-emption was filed under Section 16(3) of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. This case was registered as Land Ceiling Case No. 1 of 1993-94. The said application for pre-
emption was rejected by the Land Reform Deputy Collector by holding that the purchaser of the property was also a co-sharer of the vended property and therefore, there is no right of pre-emption in favour of the original writ petitioner.
(h) Against the order passed by Land Reform Deputy Collector, the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority which was numbered as Ceiling Appeal No. 6 of 1994 and the said authority dismissed the appeal filed by the original writ petitioner.
2. Thereafter, the revision was also filed which was numbered as Board Revision No. 87 of 1998 and after being transferred to Board of Revenue, Government of Jharkhand, the revision was numbered as Revision No. 55 of 2001. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said revision application was dismissed vide order dated 16.05.2002.
3. Accordingly, counsel for the petitioner submits that all the authorities have not appreciated the fact that the petitioner was the co-sharer of the vended property and was also the adjacent raiyat and therefore, he submits that the impugned orders are fit to be set-aside.
4. Counsel for the respondent- State opposes the prayer of the writ petitioner and submits that the petitioner has failed to establish that he is the co-sharer of the vended property and has also failed to establish his case before the authorities below in all the three courts and there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned orders. He submits that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed and the impugned orders do not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
45. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds no merit in this writ petition and is accordingly dismissed on account of the following facts and reasons:
(a) Admittedly, the property involved in this case was a part of the registered deed of gift dated 17.02.1965 which was executed in favour of Pusia Devi and Akli Devi by Lagnu Mahto. A portion of the said property was earlier sold which was about four acres of land and thereafter, the remaining eight acres of land was sold vide deed No. 4819 dated 22.12.1989 to Kandan Mahto. The deed of 1989 is the subject matter of the application for pre-emption filed by the petitioner.
(b) This Court finds that as the property transferred in the year, 1989 is admittedly a part of the property gifted vide gift deed executed in the year, 1965 and the petitioner is neither the legal heir nor descendent of Akli Devi or Pusia Devi and accordingly, he cannot claim to be a co-sharer of the vended property. The property having been transferred by gift as back as in the year 1965 cannot be said to continue to be a part of the joint family property.
(c) Further this Court finds that the learned Land Reform Deputy Collector while passing the order as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition had held that husband of Pusia Devi had sold the property to Kandan Mahto who is son of Akli Devi. This fact has not been disputed by the petitioner and accordingly, this Court finds that the property which was gifted jointly to Akli Devi and Pusia Devi was ultimately purchased by son of Akli Devi. Therefore, there is no doubt that he was the co-sharer of the vended property.
(d)This Court further finds that the petitioner had failed to establish his case under Section 16(3) of the aforesaid Act of 1961 which was confirmed by the appellate Court as well as the revisional court. The petitioner has lost in all the three 5 courts and has failed to show any perversity or illegality in the impugned orders.
6. This Court does not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj