Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.92 seconds)Ramchabila Singh And Anr. vs Ramsagar Singh And Four Ors. on 19 March, 1968
He also relied upon the decision of
Ramchabila Singh and another vs. Ramsagar Singh and four
others reported in 1969 BLJR 203 wherein their Lordships held that
"If the transferee happens to be the adjacent raiyat in respect of some of the
plots, the co-sharer cannot claim any right of pre-emption under Section 16(3)
of the Act." Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
respondents no. 5 to 9 never pleaded before the D.C.L.R that they
belong to one family but when the matter came before the Board of
Revenue they suddenly changed their stand and pleaded before the
learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue that they were of one
family but in view of para-4 of their applications, the Additional
Member, Board of Revenue ought to have rejected the aforesaid
contention of respondents no. 5 to 9 but the learned Additional
Member, Board of Revenue accepted the aforesaid contention and
passed the impugned order on erroneous grounds.
Mahanth Dhansukh Giri And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 10 December, 1984
12. It has been argued on behalf of the opposite party no. 5
to 9 that all the three courts below have given concurrent findings on
the fact and, therefore, this court should not be interfered with the
concurrent findings given by the courts below as held by Full Bench
of this court in Mahanth Dhansukh Giri Case (Supra) but in my
view, the aforesaid decision is not applicable in this case because in
that decision all the courts below held that Bodh Gaya Math was a
trust and the aforesaid consistent and concurrent finding was upheld
up to Board of Revenue and in that situation, Full Bench of this court
held that the aforesaid finding could not be interfered under writ
jurisdiction but in the present case, as I have already stated that the
preemptors for the first time raised before the Additional Member,
Board of Revenue that they were member of one family and the
learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue gave the finding in
their favour. The aforesaid point had never been raised before the
DCLR and Additional Collector and, therefore, it cannot be said that
Patna High Court CWJC No.2796 of 2003
15/16
all the three courts below had given concurrent findings on the
aforesaid fact. Therefore, in my view, this court has every right to
reverse the aforesaid finding of Additional Member, Board of
Revenue. Moreover, it has already been settled in several decisions
that the right of preemption accrues on the date of filing of petition
under Section 16(3) of the Act and if before exercising the aforesaid
right of preemption, the purchaser himself becomes the boundary
raiyat of purchased plot, another boundary raiyat will lost his right of
preemption because preemption right is a very weak right. In the
present case, it is admitted position that much prior to filing of
petition under Section 16(3) of the Act, the petitioners had already
become boundary raiyat of plot no. 474 and, therefore, the opposite
party no. 5 to 9 had already lost their right of preemption in respect of
plot no. 474 and so far as plot no. 786 is concerned, it is apparent
from the facts of the record that all the petitioners are not the
boundary raiyat of each plots and, therefore, they had no right to file
joint petitions under Section 16(3) of the Act.
Ram Chandra Srivastava And Ors. vs Parsidh Narain Singh And Ors. on 23 September, 1970
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted
that it is also an admitted position that petitions under Section 16(3)
of the Act were filed on 29.01.1985 and prior to filing of the petitions
under Section 16(3) of the Act, the petitioners had already purchased
the remaining portion of plot no. 474 through the sale deed which was
executed on 25.04.1984 and was registered on 16.10.1984 and
accordingly, petitioners themselves became boundary raiyat of the
disputed lands in respect of which petitions under Section 16(3) of the
Act were filed but all the courts below ignored the aforesaid facts
saying that subsequent registered sale deed was not brought on record
Patna High Court CWJC No.2796 of 2003
7/16
before the D.C.L.R though admittedly, the aforesaid sale deed was
brought on record before the appellate court. Learned counsel for the
petitioners further submitted that the right of preemption accrues on
the date of presentation of petition under Section 16(3) of the Act as
held in the case of Ram Chandra Srivastava and others vs. Parsidh
Narain Singh and others reported in AIR 1971 Patna 302 wherein
the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court held as follows:-
Section 33 in Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Smt. Savitri Devi And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 18 May, 2007
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the
decision of Savitri Devi and others vs. the State of Bihar and
others reported in 2013(4) PLJR 360 wherein Hon'ble Division
Bench of this court held that "If the purchaser is himself an adjacent raiyat
to the land purchased, the claim of pre-emption by any other adjacent raiyat
Patna High Court CWJC No.2796 of 2003
8/16
shall not be maintainable."
Udai Singh @ Uday Narayan Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 May, 2015
10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 5 to
9 further submitted that no doubt, before filing of petitions under
Section 16(3) of the Act, the petitioners had already got executed
remaining portion of plot no. 474 through registered sale deed but the
petitioners got executed the said sale deed with mala fide intention to
defeat the preemptory right of respondents no. 5 to 9 and, therefore,
even if it assumed that having got executed remaining portion of plot
no. 474 petitioners became boundary raiyat of plot no. 474, then also,
the subsequent sale deed shall not lend any support to the petitioners
in defeating the statutory right of the respondent no. 5 to 9. He relied
upon the decision of Udai Narain Singh and others vs. the State of
Bihar and others reported in 2008(2) PLJR 409 wherein Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court at para 19 held as follows:-
Ram Shankar Prasad Singh And Ors. vs Additional Member, Board Of Revenue And ... on 4 January, 1985
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred decision of
Ram Shankar Prasad Singh and others vs. Additional Member,
Board of Revenue and others reported in 1985 PLJR 680 wherein
his Lordship held 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". On the strength of aforesaid decision, he
submitted that in the present case, it is admitted position of the
respondents no. 5 to 9 that they were not boundary raiyat of all the
vended plots and therefore, their petitions under Section 16(3) of the
Act were not maintainable.
1