Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
1. In all these writ petitions, a common question of facts and law are involved and that is why, all these petitions are being heard together with consent
of the parties.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent State.
3. In W.P.(C) No.7384 of 2023, the prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 25.08.2023 passed in Revision Case No.22 of 2022 by the
learned Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the learned Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi has been pleased to
dismiss the revision application and affirm the order dated 23.07.2021 passed in Land Ceiling Appeal No.06/2013-14 passed by respondent no.2
whereby the land ceiling appeal was rejected and the order of DCLR, Sadar Medninagar dated 12.10.2012 in Land Ceiling Case No.09/2011-12 was
upheld.
In W.P.(C) No.7382 of 2023, the prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 25.08.2023 passed in Revision Case No.21 of 2022 by the
learned Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the learned Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi has been pleased to
dismiss the revision application and affirm the order dated 23.07.2021 passed in Land Ceiling Appeal No.05/2013-14 passed by respondent no.2
whereby the land ceiling appeal was rejected and the order of DCLR, Sadar Medninagar dated 12.10.2012 in Land Ceiling Case No.08/2011-12 was
upheld.
In W.P.(C) No.7432 of 2023, the prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 25.08.2023 passed in Revision Case No.20 of 2022 by the
learned Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the learned Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi has been pleased to
dismiss the revision application and affirm the order dated 23.07.2021 passed in Land Ceiling Appeal No.04/2013-14 passed by respondent no.2
whereby the land ceiling appeal was rejected and the order of DCLR, Sadar Medninagar dated 12.10.2012 in Land Ceiling Case No.07/2011-12 was
upheld.
In W.P.(C) No.7546 of 2023, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as defect no.4 is concerned, he will remove the said defect in
course of the day. Let him do so. The rest of the surviving defects are ignored.
The prayer in this petition has been made for quashing of the order dated 25.08.2023 passed in Revision Case No.19 of 2022 by the learned Member
Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the learned Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi has been pleased to dismiss the revision
application and affirm the order dated 23.07.2021 passed in Land Ceiling Appeal No.03/2013-14 passed by respondent no.2 whereby the land ceiling
appeal was rejected and the order of DCLR, Sadar Medninagar dated 12.10.2012 in Land Ceiling Case No.06/2011-12 was upheld.
In W.P.(C) No.7709 of 2023, the prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 25.08.2023 passed in Revision Case No.18 of 2022 by the
learned Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the learned Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi has been pleased to
dismiss the revision application and affirm the order dated 23.07.2021 passed in Land Ceiling Appeal No.02/2013-14 passed by respondent no.2
whereby the land ceiling appeal was rejected and the order of DCLR, Sadar Medninagar dated 12.10.2012 in Land Ceiling Case No.05/2011-12 was
upheld.
4. Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) in all these petitions submits that the petitioner is the adjoining raiyat and co-sharer of
the land which is the subject matter in all these petitions which has been purchased from respondent no.5 and pre-emptive petition was filed by
respondent no.4 which was allowed in his favour. He submits that the petitioner has lost up to the revisional court and the learned revisional court has
not considered this aspect of the matter that the petitioner is the purchaser of the land in question. He submits in view of that all the orders are illegal
and as such the orders passed by the authority concerned may kindly be quashed. He submits that co-sharer has also sold the part of the land in
question to other persons before executing by the responding no.5 and on this ground he submits that the writ petitions may kindly be allowed. He
relied in the case of Raghunath (Dead) By Legal Representatives v. Racha Mohan (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Other,s (2021)
12 SCC 501 paragraph no.27 of the said judgment is quoted below:
“We suppose that the aforesaid answers the dilemma i.e. whether the right of pre-emption can be enforced for an indefinite number of transactions or it is
exercisable only the first time. We opine that it is only exercisable for the first time when the cause of such a right arises, in a situation where the plaintiff pre-
emptor chooses to waive such right after the 1966 Act becoming operational. Section 9 of the said Act operates as a bar on his exercising such right on a
subsequent transaction relating to the same immovable property. We also wonder what really remains of this right of pre-emption after so many years in the facts
of this case when the purchaser has been enjoying it for more than four decades.â€
5. Learned counsel for the respondent State opposed the prayer on the ground that there are concurrent finding of three courts that the petitioner is
the outsider and he is not coming within the family tree of the pre-emptor. He further submits that in view of section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms
(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 is attracted.
6. In the impugned orders passed by the learned court it has come that only to defeat spirit of the said Act, five different sale deeds have been
executed in favour of the petitioner and there is clear cut finding that the petitioner is not coming within the family tree within the adjoining raiyat and it
has been held that the petitioner is an out-sider.
In view of that, section 16(3) of the said Act is quoted below:
“16(3)(i) When any transfer of land is made after the commencement of the Act to any person other than a co-sharer or a raiyat of adjoining land, any co-
sharer of the transferor or any raiyat holding land adjoining the land transferred, shall be entitled, within three months of the date of registration of the
document, of transfer, to make an application before the Collector in the prescribed manner for the transfer of the land to him on the terms and conditions
contained in the said deed:
Provided that no such application shall be entertained by the Collector unless the purchase money together with a sum equal to ten percent thereof is deposited
in the prescribed manner within the said period.
(ii) On such deposit being made the co-sharer or the raiyat shall be entitled to be put in possession of the land irrespective of the fact that the application under
clause (i) is pending for decision:
Provided that where the application is rejected, the cosharer or the raiyat, as the case may be, shall be evicted from the land and possession there of shall be
restored to the transferee and the transferee shall be entitled to be paid a sum equal to ten per cent of the purchase money out of the deposit made under clause
(i).
(iii) If the application is allowed, the Collector shall by an order direct the transferee to convey the land in favour of the applicant by executing and registering a
document of transfer within a period to be specified in the order and, if he neglects or refuses to comply with the direction, the procedure prescribed in Order 21,
Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), shall be, so far as may be, followed.â€
7. The case relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Raghunath (Dead) By Legal Representatives v. Racha MohanÂ
(Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others
(supra), the main issue before the Hon’ble Apex Court was limitation for exercise of the right of pre-emption, whether the limitation shall
commence from the first sale deed or from the subsequent sale and it was held that right of pre-emption is only exercisable for the first time when the
cause of such right arises but in the case in hand the issue is otherwise as such this case is not helping the petitioner.
8. It has come in the finding of the three courts that the petitioner is not the co-sharer and only to create a right five sale deeds have been executed in
favour of the petitioner and mutation is also running in favour of father of the respondent no.4 and 5 which clearly suggest that the petitioner is an out-
sider to the said family and further ground the petitioner is now taking with regard to adjoining raiyat of the said land which is not available to the
petitioner in view of the fact that this ground has not been raised before all the three courts. The Court of law is not supposed to deviate from the
statute and onus is upon the petitioner to prove that he has acted in terms of the statute and the petitioner has failed to satisfy the conditions precedent
under section 16(3) of the Act of 1961. It is well settled proposition of law that interpretation of any statute needs to be done in view of the provisions
made therein and where statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way.
All the three courts have rightly considered section 16(3) of the Act. There is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by all the three courts. No
case of interference is made out.
9. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.7384 of 2023, W.P.(C) No.7382 of 2023, W.P.(C) No.7432 of 2023, W.P.(C) No.7546 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No.7709 of
2023 are dismissed.
10. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.
