Nirmala Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1446 of 2012 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11961 of 2012 =========================================================== Nirmala Devi W/O Lalan Tiwari R/O Vill-Sadokhar, P.S.-Chenari P.O.-Sadokhar, Distt-Rohtas, At Present Residing At Q.No.3238 Sector 2a, Bokaro Steal City, Bokaro, Jharkhand.

.... .... Appellant

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna

3. The Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram

4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Roahtas at Sasaram

5. The Circle Officer, Chenari, Rohtas

6. Prano Devi W/O Gorakh Nath Thakur R/O Vill-Sadokhar, P.S.- Chenari P.O.-Sadokhar, Distt-Rohtas.

7. Mahasi Ganga Mishra W/O Kameshwar Mishra R/O Vill-Kajhaw, P.O.-Alampur, Distt-Rohtas.

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

For the Appellant :

Mr. K.N. Choubey, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, Advocate Mr. Dineshwar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent no. 6 & 7 :Dr. Mayanand Jha, Advocate Mr Dharmendra Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Renu Jha, AC to SC 30 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) Date: 26-11-2015 We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the private contesting respondents being respondent nos. 6 & 7.

This matter arises out of a claim of preemption made by the writ petitioner/appellant preempting the sale by

Patna High Court LPA No.1446 of 2012 dt.26-11-2015 respondent no. 7 in favour of respondent no. 6 in respect of about 1 1⁄2 Khatas of land for a consideration amount of Rs. 42,500/-. The authorities have negatived the claim of preemption on the ground that the land was purchased for constructing a residential house. It may be noted that the first court i.e. court of D.C.L.R. accepted the contention and allowed the preemption application. Respondent nos. 6 & 7, being the vendee and vendor, respectively filed appeals before the Collector which was allowed and the preemption was consequently disallowed. The writ petitioner/appellant then filed revision before the Divisional Commissioner which was dismissed affirming the order of the Collector. This was challenged by him before the learned Single Judge pressing his right of preemption.

It was noted that the sale had taken place on 02.04.2004. We are now in 2015. The authorities clearly holding that as per the sale deed itself, the sale was sought to be made for constructing a residential house and the Collector and the Divisional Commissioner have held that there was a thatched hut from before, and now the nature is totally changed and there is a pucca house which has been built.

Patna High Court LPA No.1446 of 2012 dt.26-11-2015 after payment of such a high price, it being a purchase of urbanized land for residential purposes. The right of preemption under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1981, does not arise.

This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) (Nilu Agrawal, J.) Rajeev/N.A.F.R.

U