Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The origin of the dispute related to transfer of a land in favour of the present appellants through a registered sale deed, which was executed on 02.01.1985. The land in dispute measured 0.19 decimals and appertain to Khata Nos. 90, 184 and 214 of Mauza-Jahngar Toli, P.S. Banmankhi in the district of Purnea. The original private respondent No.5, who is dead now, filed an application under Section 16 (3) of the Act claiming preemption on the ground that he was the adjoining raiyat. The Deputy Collector Patna High Court LPA No.439 of 2016 dt.26-06-2018 Land Reforms, however, vide his orders dated 10.04.1986/17.04.1986, rejected the claim of preemption on the ground that the present appellants were the adjoining raiyat of the disputed land as they had acquired the land adjacent to the disputed land in the year 1976 itself. The Additional Collector, Purnea, in Ceiling Appeal No.43 of 1986-87 affirmed the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms. However, not being satisfied with the two decisions, the respondent No.5 preferred the Revision Case No. 563 of 1990 before the Additional Member, Board of Revenue. The revision application was allowed, therefore, writ application was filed. The writ Court, in turn, upheld the decision of the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, therefore, the present appeal against the order passed in the writ application.

Patna High Court LPA No.439 of 2016 dt.26-06-2018 Learned counsel for the appellants, however, submits that there is a serious flaw in the reason assigned by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, as well as the learned single Judge in upholding the decision of the Additional Member for the reason that they have not been able to appreciate the interplay of the various sections in the right perspective. Mere issuance of a notification under Section 3 would not create the bar, which has been contemplated under Section 5 of the Consolidation Act and something more was required to be done or happen before the bar will set in. In this regard, attention of the Court has been drawn to a Division Bench decision rendered in the case of Surendra Rai and Others vs. The State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2015(2) PLJR 774.

Patna High Court LPA No.439 of 2016 dt.26-06-2018 ^^vfHkys[k rFkk vfHkys[k esa miyC/k dkxtkrksa] izfrosnuksa] j{k lafpdk ,oa ewy vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA mi funs "kd pdcanh] oS"kkyh ds izfrosnu i=kad 13 fnukad 24-4-02 ls Li"V gS fd iz "uxr Hkwfe xzke efV;kjk Vksg] Fkkuk ua0 329] vapy ykyxat] ftyk oS "kkyh dk /kkjk 26¼d½ dk vf/klwpuk fuxZr ugha gqbZ gSA blls Li"V gS fd Hkwfe ds gLrkukUrj.k djus ds iwoZ vuqefr dh vko";drk FkhA vr% ewy vfHkys[k la0 vkj0 183@96 &97 esa fnukad 8-9-97@23-9-97 dks ikfjr vkns"k esa fdlh ifjorZu dh vko";drk ugha gSA foi{kh lqjsUnz jk; dk vkosnu vLohd`rA okn dh dkjZokbZ lekIr dh tkrh gSA**

19. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order dated 07.08.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.5034 of 2003. As a result, the writ petition is allowed and order dated 30.09.2002 passed by the 1st respondent in Misc. Case No.89 of 1999 is set aside." The submission was further expanded on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants that the basis of the Division Patna High Court LPA No.439 of 2016 dt.26-06-2018 Bench is that even though a notification under Section 3 of the Consolidation Act was issued sometime on 10.09.1975, but nothing more in terms of exercise was carried out thereafter by any of the authorities. To reinforce such a factual submission, a supplementary affidavit has been filed annexing Annexure-1, which is an information obtained under Right to Information Act and provided by the Deputy Director (Consolidation), Purnea, to the question whether any consolidation proceeding was initiated in the village concerned in the year 1975 and further anything decisive was done thereafter. The response of the Deputy Director is that even though a notification was initiated in the year 1975, but since on a something known as "Kosi Kranti Yojna", nothing came to be done in relation to the consolidation in that area all the proceedings were stopped and, therefore, the stage of Section 10(1) of the Consolidation Act was never reached. No publication was ever issued with regard to the list of the lands and, therefore, we are also of the opinion that the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Surendra Rai (supra) will apply in the present case and the decisions rendered by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue and upheld by the learned single Judge in the writ application seems to be falling in the teeth of the said Patna High Court LPA No.439 of 2016 dt.26-06-2018 decision. There is no mechanical debarment merely on issuance of notification under Section 3.