MD. NEBI KARIM AND ORS. Vs. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against the order dated 19.5.1980, passed by the Additional Collector, Samastipur as contained in Annexure '2' as also against the order dated 14.1.1981, passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna as contained in Annexure '3' to this writ application, whereby and whereunder the application for pre -emption filed by the respondent No. 3 was allowed. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass and are not much in dispute.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has raised a novel point. He submitted that in view of the fact that the lands in question, meaning thereby five kathas ten dhurs, being in two separate blocks and having been owned by two different owners namely respondent No. 4 and Md. Wahid respectively, the question of allowing the application of pre -emption filed by respondent No. 3, did not and could not arise. According to the learned counsel, by reason of the aforementioned sale deed, the petitioners became the owner of both the blocks, which are adjacent to each other and thus they also became the owner of the adjacent land and as such no order for preemption in terms of Sec. 16(3) of the Act could be passed against them. The learned counsel, in this connection has relied on a recent division bench decision of this Court in Ramrup Yadav v/s. The State of Bihar : (1987 P.L.J.R. 455). In the aforementioned decision the pre -emption purchased two blocks of lands which were adjacent to each other on the same day and in that situation it was held that the owner of the land had a better title over the pre -emptor as by purchasing two plots on the same date, he himself became the holder of an adjoining plot and, therefore, he could defeat the application for pre -emption filed by the 3rd party. The aforementioned decision, in my opinion, is completely distinguishable and must be held to have rendered in a different situation and in peculiar facts of that case.

(3.) Id the aforementioned decision, the petitioner thereof purchased two different blocks of land by two different deeds, the title in respect of one would be held to have passed earlier than the other and as such in such a situation it was possible for the petitioners of that writ application to become the owner of adjacent land which he himself purchased on the same date. In that decision only one block of land was subject matter of one sale deed and another block of land was covered by another sale deed, the later being the subject matter of the application under Sec. 16(3) of the Act.