http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SHEOJI MMAHTO & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OFREVENUE & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/12/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the Patna  High Court,  made on December 10,1984 in CWJC No. 5491/84 dismissing the writ petition in limine.      The  admitted   facts  are  that  Sukhdeo  Raj  is  the predecessor in  interest of  respondents.  Gulabo  Devi  and others had purchased one katha of land towards the east land of the  appellants from  Sukhdeo Rai by a sale deed executed on December  31,1979  Which  was    got  registered  on  for February 8,1980. The appellants had filed an application for preemption of  the land  on the  ground that  he, being  the adjoining raiyat,  by operation  of Section  16 (3)  of  the Bihar Lands  Ceiling Act  was entitled  to preemption of the said land  from the contesting respondent. The Tribunal help in favour  of the  appellant respondent The Collector in the proceedings  dated   August  11,   1984  held   against  the appellants. The  High Court  has dismissed the writ petition in limine  as stated  earlier. The  question, therefore  is: Whether the view of the collector is correct in law? Section 16(3)(1) Reads as under      "16(3)(1) When any transfer of land      is made  after the  commencement of      this   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 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      per cent  thereof is  deposited  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    the prescribed  manner  within  the      said period.      (ii) on such deposit being made the      co-sharer of  the Raiyat  shall  be      entitled to be put in possession of      the land  irrespective under clause      (i) is pending for decision:      Provided that where the application      is rejected,  the co-sharer  or the      Raiyat as  the case may be shall be      enacted   from    the   land    and      possession   thereof    shall    be      restored to  the transferee and the      transferee shall  be entitled to be      paid a  sum equal  ten per  cent of      the  purchase   money  out  of  the      deposit made under clause (i)."      A reading  of section  16(3)(i) Clearly  indicates that 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 and  any co-sharer  of the land transferred 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  of  the collector in  the prescribed  manner for the transfer in the said deed. It is not in dispute that Tribunal below help the lad sold  to the  respondents by  registered sale  deed.  An application was also filed within three months from the date of  the   registration  of   the   document.   Under   these circumstances the  two conditions  having been  satisfied by operation of section 16 (3) (i), the appellants are entitled to preemption  of the  said land.  The High Court therefore, was clearly  in error  in refusing  to  entertain  the  writ petition dismissed  in limine.  The collector was also Wrong in allowing the appeal.      The appeal  is accordingly. The order of the High Court as also of the collector are set aside. No costs.