Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the order, dated 21.12.2005 ( Annexure-6 ) passed in Revision Case No. 26 of 2005 by the respondent No. 2 i.e., Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand Ranchi, whereby the said Authority has set aside the appellate order dated 09.06.2005 passed in land ceiling Appeal No. 8 of 2004 which in turn was passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh. The petitioner further prays for quashing the order dated 07.02.2004 (Annexure-4) passed in land Ceiling Case No. 13 of 2003 by the respondent No. 4 i.e. Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, whereby the claim of the petitioner being the pre-emptor of the land under section 16(3) of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 has been rejected.
(3.) The brief facts involved in this case as submitted by the petitioner is as follows:- a. Deonarayan Pandey husband of Bilwanti Devi alias Bimla Devi was cousin brother of Kedar Pandey alias Kedarnath Pandey, the petitioner herein and they were co-sharer of their ancestral property. b. After partition and after the death of Deonarayan Pandey, Bilwanti Devi inherited the property. Bilwanti Devi got the entire landed property including the property involved in this case, bearing Khata No. 5, Plot No. 280 measuring area 0.78 acres by filing title suit No. 31/37 of 1967/72 wherein the petitioner was Defendant No. 6. c. Said Bilwanti Devi transferred the land, in question, to her brothers Bhuneshwar Tiwari, Shashibhushan Tiwary and Yudhsishthir Tiwari by means of gift deed dated 3.7.1995. d. Admittedly, the neither the writ petitioner nor the contesting respondent herein are related to Bhubneshwar Tiwari, Shashibhushan Tiwari and Yudishthir Tiwari. e. Subsequently, Bhuneshwar Tiwari, Shashibhushan Tiwari and Yudhishthir Tiwari transferred the said land in favour of the Dahni Devi wife of Bhuneshwar Gope vide registered sale deed dated 20.06.2003.Said Dhani Devi was respondent No. 6 in this writ petition who has now been substituted by her legal heirs and successors. A copy of the said sale deed is annexed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition. f. From the perusal of the said sale deed, it appears that the sale deed mentions about the gift deed dated 03.07.1995 and the boundary of the property of the land is mentioned as: North: Jagatnarayan Pandey & others. South- Kedar Pandey & others. East- Rupan Gope & others. West- Kamakhya Pandey & others. g. It is a specific case of the petitioner that as per the deed itself towards the South the name of the petitioner appears as Kedar Pandey and further the petitioner has stated at para 4 (g) of the writ petition that since the land in question is the ancestral property of the petitioner and hence he is the co-sharer of the property of Late Deonaranayan Tiwari/ Bilwanti Devi. However, during the course of the arguments, the petitioner admit that the petitioner has no relation with Bilwanti Devi alias Bimla Devi wife of Deonarayan Tiwari and he cannot be termed as co-sharer of the vended property. h. The petitioner filed a case before the Deputy Collector land reforms u/S. 16(3) of the aforesaid Act which was numbered as L.C. Case No. 13/03 against the purchaser of the property i.e original respondent No. 6 namely Dahni Devi vide sale deed dated 20.06.2003. i. Notice was issued in L.C. Case No. 13 of 2004 to the Smt. Dahni Devi she appeared before the said authority and disputed the claim of the petitioner Kedar Pandey. j. The LC case No. 13 of 2003 was decided by Deputy Collector land reforms vide order dated 07.02.2004 whereby the application filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed by holding that there has been no violation of the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 by the vendors of Smt. Dahni Devi in selling the property, in question. It was held that in the sale deed itself it has been recorded that towards the Eastern boundary the property belongs to Rupan Gope ancestor of the husband of Smt. Dahni Devi namely Bhubaneshwar Gope and accordingly the husband of Smt. Dahni Devi was the adjoining Raiyat of the property. k. Against the said order dated 07.02.2004 an appeal was filed by the petitioner being Appeal case No. 8 of 2004 before the respondent No. 3 i.e. Additional Collector, Hazaribagh and the said authority after hearing the parties allowed the appeal vide order dated 9-6-2005. The appeal was decided in favour of the writ petitioner herein on the ground that from the perusal of the sale deed it is apparent that the writ petitioner is adjoining raiyat of the property, in question, and also on the ground that the property, in question, has been purchased in the name of Dahni Devi and the adjoining plot being in the name of her husband, Dahni Devi cannot be termed as adjoining raiyat. l. Against the aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Authority a revision petition was filed before the Member of Board of Revenue, Jharkhand by Smt. Dahni Devi which was numbered as Revision case No. 26 of 2005. m. The specific case of Smt. Dahni Devi before the revisional court was that her husband had purchased the land in her name and her husband is the raiyat of the land adjoining to the disputed land and accordingly the Appellate Authority was not right in holding that the Smt. Dahni Devi was not the adjoining Raiyat. Before the revisional court she has not denied that the petitioner i.e., the pre-emptor was a raiyat of the land adjoining to the disputed land. The revisional authority dismissed the revision by the impugned order dated 21.12.2005.;