AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) IN the Instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ application, dated 18.09.1990 passed by the L.R.D.C., Dhanbad in Land Ceiling Case No. 17/1983 -84/ 1/1990 -91 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 16(3) of the Land Ceiling Act, 1961. The said order of the L.R.D.C. was confirmed in appeal by order dated 20th of July, 1992 by the Additional Collector, Dhanbad, as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application. The petitioner, thereafter preferred a Revision which was also dismissed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna by the order doted 30th of June. 1994, as contained in Annexure 4 to the present writ application. The land in dispute is Plot No. 367 under Khata No. 18 Area more or less 2 Kalhas.
(2.) AN application under Sec.16(3) of the Land Ceiling Act was filed by the petitioner, stating therein that he was the adjoining Raiyat. It is stated that Bhola Nath Singh, the land holder, sold the aforesaid disputed land by sale -deed No. 14053 dated 22.12.1983, of which, the Registration was completed on 28.01.1984, to Babli Devi who was neither a co -sharer nor an adjoining Raiyat of the land in question. It was further stated that the petitioner deposited the purchase money of Rs. 5,000.00 together with 10 percent thereof as required under Sub -rule (i) of Rule 19 of the Rules and Sec.16(3) of the Land Ceiling Act. It is further stated that the petitioner came to know that the vendor in collusion with vendee, retransferred the said land covered under the sale -deed dated 22.12.1983 and has created again a sale on 11.01.1984, only in order to defeat the right of pre -emption of the petitioner and the second sale dated 11.01.1984 was collusive, fraudulent, without consideration and Ferji. On the above ground the writ petitioner prayed to allow pre -emption of the land in dispute.
(3.) THE claim of the petitioner was objected vehemently by the respondents by filing a reply as also both the parties adduced documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their case before the trial Court.;