S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by order dated 06.10.1998 in Case No. 321 and 322 of 1995 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue whereby, order dated 23.11.1995 passed by the Additional Collector, Palamaul in L.C. Appeal No. 01 and 02 of 1995 -96 and order dated 03.05.1995 in L.C. Case No. 11 -12 of 1994 -95 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Daltonganj have been affirmed, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petitions.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, the respondent No. 6 executed two sale -deeds being sale -deed No. 2392 dated 24.03.1992, registered on 25.05.1994 in favour of the petitioner -Urmila Devi [C.W.J.C. No. 72 of 1999 (R)] and sale -deed No. 2393 dated 24.03.1992, registered on 25.05.1994 in favour of the petitioners -Pushpa Devi and Urmila Devi [C.W.J.C. No. 74 of 1999 (R)]. The respondent No. 5 filed an application dated 22.08.1994 under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 claiming right of pre -emption and the same was registered as L.C. Case No. 11 -12 of 1994 -95. Vide order dated 03.05.1995 the L.C. Case No. 11 -12 of 1994 -95 was allowed in favour of the respondent No. 5 and the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the said order has been dismissed vide order dated 23.11.1995. Contending that it would be evident from the document that the claim of the respondent No. 5 as a co -sharer and as an adjoining raiyat is not established and the pre -emptor -respondent No. 5 made partial claim of pre -emption which is not maintainable in law and he has, in fact, disputed title of the vendor of the petitioners in a proceeding under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 which is also not permissible, the order dated 23.11.1995 was challenged however, Case No. 321 and 322 of 1995 were also dismissed erroneously. A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5 stating that his claim is based on two sale -deeds being sale -deed No. 940 dated 24.02.1992, registered on 01.04.1994 and sale -deed No. 5018 dated 06.05.1988, registered on 06.02.1989. The respondent No. 5 claimed that he is a co -sharer and an adjoining raiyat of most of the plots comprised in both the sale -deeds. The petitioners are not co -sharer/adjoining raiyat. The village map and a rough sketch have been produced to indicate that the respondent No. 5 is an adjoining raiyat of all the vended plots. The pre -emptor -respondent No. 5 has not claimed himself an adjacent raiyat with respect to the land which has been vended in favour of the petitioner Urmila Devi by the respondent No. 6 through sale -deed for plot No. 470 and plot No. 469. The gift -deed allegedly executed on 22.07.1994 has purposely been executed to defeat the right of pre -emption to the pre -emptor -respondent No. 5.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.;