SMT. PRIYAMBADA DEVI AND ANOTHER Vs. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders contained in Annexures, 1, 2 and 3.

(2.) The Land Reforms Deputy Collector dismissed the pre -emption application by his order dated 19th May, 1975 on the ground that the donee had not been made a party and, therefore, the pre -emption application was not maintainable He, however, observed that the pre -emptor may file a fresh application after impleading the donee as a party. There was an appeal against the said order by respondent No. 4 and the Additional Collector remanded the case to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector and directed him to add the donee as a party in the case and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. This order is dated 5.6.1975 as contained in Annexure -5. Thereafter the Land Reforms Deputy Collector passed a fresh order after hearing the parties on 19.6.1976 (Annexure -1). By the fresh order he allowed the pre -emption application about which I have already stated above and the appellate authority and the revisional authority dismissed the appeal and revision under Annexures 2 and 3, respectively.

(3.) Mrs. Gyan Sudha Mishra, learned Counsel in support of this application contended that the order contained in Annexure -1 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector and the appellate and the revisional orders passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 1, respectively affirming the same are illegal as Sec. 16(3) of the Act has no application to a deed of gift executed before the application for pre -emption was filed and though registered during the pendency of the proceeding under the Act. She further contended that there was no allegation that the gift in question executed by petitioner No. 1 in favour of petitioner No. 2 was a sham and farzi transaction and, therefore, also Sec. 16(3) has no application. Her further contention was that petitioner No. 2 was added in the proceeding after the appeal from the original order was allowed under Annexure -5 dated 5.6.1975 with a direction to respondent No. 3 to add petitioner No. 2 as a party to the proceeding and decide the case afresh in accordance with law. Thus the audition, according to the learned Counsel, being much beyond the period of limitation, the application for pre -emption should not have been allowed by the authorities under the Act.