Ram Badan Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4702 of 2009 ====================================================== Ram Badan Singh S/o Late Ram Sharan Singh, R/o Vill. - Dalan Haripur, P.O. - Budhwa, P.S. - Alauli, District - Khagaria. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Hon'ble Member, Board of Revenue, Patna.

2. Satish Kumar Singh

3. Arun Kumar Singh, both sons of Jainath Prasad Singh, resident of village - Dalan Haripur, P.O. - Budwa, P.S. - Alauli, District - Khagaria.

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tarun Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : AC to SC - 12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5.

28-04-2015 Heard Sri Tarun Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to Standing Counsel - 12. The petitioner, who had claimed right of pre-emption, has approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside an order dated 04-12-2008 passed in Revenue Case No. 137 of 2005, whereby, learned Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar had rejected the restoration petition on the ground of inordinate delay. The restoration petition was filed after about eight months from the rejection of revision case. Petitioner's pre-emption application was earlier allowed by the D.C.L.R., Khagaria, vide Case No. 5 of 2002-03, however; the said order was set aside by

Patna High Court CWJC No.4702 of 2009 (5) dt.28-04-2015 2/2 the appellate authority in pre-emption appeal case no. 10 of 200203. After the order of the appellate authority, on perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that revision was filed belatedly, which too stood dismissed due to non-prosecution. However, after about eight months restoration petition was filed, which has been dismissed by the learned Addl. Member, Board of Revenue only on the ground of delay. On perusal of the order, it is evident that the learned Addl. Member has noticed that no plausible explanation was given for filing restoration petition belatedly. The learned Addl. Member has discussed the matter in detail and thereafter, has rejected the restoration petition. Fact remains that it is admitted position that right of pre-emption is itself a weak right, which can be frustrated by process of law. On perusal of the impugned order, the Court is satisfied that while rejecting the restoration petition, learned Addl. Member, Board of Revenue has committed no error. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay/- U