- (1.) With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.
(2.) This intra-court appeal is preferred against the order/judgment dated 23.02.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 7084 of 2011 with W.P. (C) No. 7102 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the writ petitions were allowed and orders dated 22.10.2011 passed in Land Ceiling Revision Case No. 33/2009 and Land Ceiling Revision Case No. 34/2009; orders dated 19.09.2009 passed in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 05/2007- 08 and Land Ceiling Appeal No. 12 of 2007-08; and orders dated 12.01.2007 passed in Land Ceiling Case No. 2/2005-06 and Land Ceiling Case No. 1/2005-06 were quashed and set aside. 4. The brief facts of the case, which are required to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis, are as under: The writ petitioners, respondents nos. 2 to 4 herein, who are members of Hindu undivided family, purchased two landed property vide registered sale deed Nos. 589 of 2005 and 590 of 2005 both dated 31.03.2005. The respondent no. 5, namely, Sitaram Sao (appellant herein) filed pre-emption applications, being Land Ceiling Case No. 2/2005-06 and Land Ceiling Case No. 1/2005-06, on the ground that he is the adjoining raiyat on the western side of the vended plot as such the vended plot ought to be registered in his name, which were allowed vide order dated 12.01.2007 by the revenue authority-Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Latehar, against which the writ petitioners had filed appeal, being Land Ceiling Appeal No. 05/2007-08 and Land Ceiling Appeal No. 12 of 2007-08, which were dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2009 and thereafter, the writ petitioners filed revision applications, being Land Ceiling Revision Case No. 33 of 2009 and Land Ceiling Revision Case No. 34 of 2009, which were also dismissed. Aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioners filed two writ petitions challenging orders passed by the revenue authorities, being W.P.(C) No. 7084 of 2011 and W.P.(C) No. 7102 of 2011, which were heard together and allowed vide order dated 23.02.2018.
(3.) In the instant intra-court appeal, the appellant (respondent no. 5 in the writ petition) has confined his prayer with respect to order passed in W.P.(C) No. 7102 of 2011 that is matter relating to sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005. The specific case of the writ petitioners before the writ Court was that by virtue of registered sale deed no. 494 dated 18.4.2001, the father of the writ petitioners, namely, Dwarika Vishwakarma purchased 20 decimals of land from the owner of the land namely, Khobhari Singh Kushwaha and Lakshman Singh Kushwaha, in Old Khata No. 38 (New Khata No. 104), Old Plot No. 79 (New Plot No. 318) with the boundary: North : Nij. South : Shiv Sao and Murat Sao East : Mahesh Singh West : Tulsi Sao In the year 2005, one of the boundary raiyats towards southern side of the property as contained in sale deed no. 494 dated 18.04.2001 sold out 31 decimals of land in Khata No.30 (New Khata No.109), Plot No.151 (New Plot No.315) to the writ petitioners by registered sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005 with the following boundary: North : Dwarika Vishwakarma South : Shiva Sao East : Basudeo Mishra & Raj Ballabh Singh West : Sitaram Master It was further case of the writ petitioners that the sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005 clearly shows Dwarika Vishwarkarma to its northern adjoining raiyat, which is on account of sale deed no. 494 dated 18.04.2001, therefore, there was no dispute that the father of the writ petitioners namely, Dwarika Vishwarkarma, who was the member of the joint Hindu family, was the adjoining raiyat of the property as contained in sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005, as such the writ petitioners also have the status of the adjoining raiyat of the property covered under sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005 and accordingly, the writ petitioners have rightly purchased the property and there was no violation of Section 16 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act'). On the other hand, respondent no. 5, the appellant herein, submitted before the writ Court that claim of the writ petitioners being adjoining raiyat in connection with sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005 is based on the sale deed of the year 2001 executed in favour of the father of the petitioners, but the aforesaid sale deed was never produced before any of the quasi judicial authorities rather the same was placed for the first time before the writ Court, thus the said claim of the petitioners is not fit to be considered. The writ Court, after considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the documents available on record, allowed the writ petitions vide order dated 23.02.2018, which is the subject matter of present intra court appeal. ;