GURU CHARAN SARDAR AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The pre -emptor, who filed an application under Sec. 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has moved this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the validity of the order (resolution) of Sri Arun Prasad, Additional Member, Board of Revenue, passed under Sec. 32 of the Act, and that of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum, passed in an appeal under Sec. 30 of the Act. Facts are short and undisputed. The petitioners are the adjoining raiyats of the vended lands. The vendor (respondent No. 5), the vendee (respondent No. 4) and the pre -emptors (Petitioners) belong to the Scheduled Tribes. With a view to transferring his land the vendor (respondent No. 5) filed an application under Sec. 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, for permission to the transfer. Notices, were accordingly issued to all concerned, including the public notice, and when no objections were filed permission to transfer the lands was granted to him. After the permission for transfer was obtained in accordance with law, respondent No. 5 executed a registered document of sale in favour of respondent No. 4. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for pre -emption as provided under Sec. 16(3) of the Act. On the findings that the pre -emptors are raiyats of the adjoining lands of the vended plots and co -sharers the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Saraikela, directed for reconveyance of the lands in favour of the petitioners.

(2.) Respondent No. 4 (the vendee) appealed under Sec. 30 of the Act. The appeal was heard by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum, who allowed the appeal holding that the petitioners could have objected to the proposed transfer by respondent No. 5 in favour of respondent No. 4 when the application for permission to transfer the land was made under Sec. 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, but they did not do so, and, later, when the transfer was made, they filed the application for preemption only to harass the parties.

(3.) The petitioners filed an application in revisions against the said order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner before Board of Revenue. They, however, committed a mistake in not impleading the vendor (respondent No. 5) as a party respondent to the revision application. This mistake was later detected and an application for adding him as a party in the revision was filed by the petitioners on 11.1.1983. The revision application was finally heard by Shri Arun Prasad, learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue. He held on the facts on this case that there has been inordinate delay in filing the application for impleading respondent No. 5 as a party respondent and such a prayer at a belated stage was barred by limitation. He has further held that no application for condonation of delay was filed by the petitioners. They also failed to make out a case for condonation of delay. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Ch. Surat Singh v/s. Manohar Lal ( : AIR 1971 SC 240), he held that an application for adding a party at a belated stage could not be entertained and dismissed the revision application. The petitioners have thereafter moved this Court and questioned the validity of the orders of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum (Annexure 2) and the Additional Member, Board of Revenue (Annexure 1).