[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Inderdeo Choudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 February, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2026:JHHC:4383
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1730 of 2006
1. Inderdeo Choudhary
2. Murli Manohar Choudhary
3. Umesh Kumar Choudhary
All sons of late Pitamber Choudhary, resident of village - Mango,
P.O. Sudan, Via - Jai Nagar, P.S. Barkathha, District -
Hazaribagh. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand
3. The Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, P.O. P.S. and District -
Hazaribagh
4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reform, Barhi, P.O., P.S. Barhi,
District - Hazafibagh
5. (a) Yamuna Devi, wife of late Harihar Choudhary
(b) Sheo Shankar Choudhary, son of late Harihar Choudhary
(c ) Jay Shankar Choudhary, son of late Harihar Choudhary
(d) Siya Dulari, daughter of late Harihar Choudhary
(e ) Phool Kumari, daughter of late Harihar Choudhary
All residents of village - Mango, P.O. - Sudan, via - Jai Nagar,
P.S. - Chalkusa, District - Hazaribag
6. Smt. Dulia Devi, wife of Sri Etwari Mahto, resident of village -
Alagdih, P.S. Barkathha, P.O. & District - Hazaribagh
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate
: Md. Abdul Wahab, Advocate
: Mr. Anurag Chandra, Advocate
For the Resp. No.5 : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai, AC to SC (L&C)I
---
18/16.02.2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
"That in the present writ petition, the abovenamed Petitioners pray
for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other
writ/Rule/order/direction of like nature to quash the order dated
12.12.2005 (Annexure-5) passed by Respondent no.2 in Hazaribagh
Revision Case no. 59/2004 whereby the respondent no.2 illegally
allowed the revision and the application filed by Respondent no.5
under section 16(3) (i) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of
Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (here-in-
after referred to as the Act) after setting aside the order dated
29.10.2004 (Annexure-4) passed by respondent no. 3 in Land
2026:JHHC:4383
Ceiling Appeal no. 15 of 2003 and the order dated 30.9.2003
(Annexure-3) passed by Respondent no. 4 in Land Ceiling Case no.
2/2003; And for issuance of such other writ/Rule/order/Direction as
Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts and
the circumstances of the case."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
petitioners are the purchasers of the property involved in this case and
respondent no.5 was the preemptor, who filed an application under
Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area
and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. The learned counsel
submits that both the authorities i.e. the authority, who had
adjudicated the pre-emption application as well as the appellate
authority, held that the petitioners were the co-sharers of the property
and dismissed the application for pre-emption.
4. The learned counsel submits that the specific case of the
petitioners was that they are the co-sharers of the property and it was
never their case that they are the adjoining raiyats with respect to the
property involved in this case.
5. The learned counsel submits that the Member, Board of
Revenue had not exercised his jurisdiction properly while reversing
the finding of the two authorities. For this, he has relied upon a
judgement passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in AIR 1985
(Patna) 129 (Mahanth Dhansukh Giri Vs. State of Bihar) and
submitted that the scope of interference in the order passed by the
appellate authority by the Member, Board of Revenue is very limited.
6. The learned counsel for respondent no.5 has submitted that the
petitioners had purchased the property after it was already sold by
their ancestors. He submits that by no stretch of imagination, the
petitioners could be said to be co-sharers of the vended property which
was already sold way back in 1971. He submits that there were
different transactions with respect to the property and the ancestor of
the petitioners had lost right, title as it was already sold by their
ancestor. He submits that the petitioners cannot claim to be the co-
sharer of the vended property and the earlier transfers by their ancestor
was never challenged.
2026:JHHC:4383
7. The learned counsel submits that the aforesaid aspect of the
matter has been appreciated by the Member, Board of Revenue and
after detailed discussion, the revision has been rightly allowed and the
prayer for preemption has been allowed. It is not in dispute that the
private respondent is the adjoining raiyat of the vended property and it
was never claimed by the petitioners to be the adjoining raiyat of the
vended property.
8. The learned counsel for the State has referred to the impugned
order and submitted that the impugned order is a well-reasoned order
which does not call for interference. He submits that the scope of
interference under writ jurisdiction is very limited and the writ court
can interfere with the finding of the Member, Board of Revenue while
exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only in
case of perversity or if the order is passed without jurisdiction. He has
also submitted that the Member, Board of Revenue is the final
authority so far as the facts are concerned.
9. The findings recorded by the Member, Board of Revenue in the
impugned order is quoted as follows:
"The question of the petitioner being a raiyat of land adjoining the
disputed land stands settled in that both the Courts below have
found that the petitioner is in fact a raiyat of adjoining land. Both
the Courts below, however, ruled against the petitioner on the
ground that respondents 1, 2 & 3 were co-sharers and as such an
application under Section 16(3)(i) of the Act is not tenable. The
question that arises is whether respondents 1 to 3 are indeed co-
sharers? The law is very clear on the point that for an application
under Section 16(3)(i) of the Act to succeed it must be established
beyond doubt that the vendee is neither a co-sharer of the vender
nor is the vendee a raiyat of adjoining land. It has been pleaded on
behalf of respondents 1 to 3 that they are co-sharers because the
rent receipt of the disputed land is still being issued in the name of
their ancestors. The counsel for the respondents has not pressed
the issue of their being adjoining raiyats except for pleading that
plot No. 235 is a very large plot and that the rent receipts of the
rest of the plots are being read out in the name of their ancestors.
It is evident from the case records as well as the impugned order
that there was a partition suit bearing No. 195/1950 in the Court
of the Sub Judge, Hazaribagh in which the ancestral lands were
partitioned through a compromise. There are many co-sharers of
the Khatiyani Raiyat as well as their descendants. No where has it
2026:JHHC:4383
been pleaded that respondents 1 to 3 are the descendents upon
whom share in the land adjoining the disputed land has devolved.
It is. therefore, clear that while the petitioner has been able to
establish that he is a raiyat of land adjoining the disputed land,
respondents 1 to 3 have failed to do so.
However, both the Courts below have erred in holding that
respondents 1 to 3 are co-sharers. Section 16(3) (i) of the Bihar
Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus
Land) Act, 1961 clearly stipulates that it has to be established that
the vendee is not a co-sharer of the vendor. In the instant case the
ancestor of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 may have been the Khatiyani
Raiyat but there have been a number of transactions through
legally valid sale deeds of the disputed property. The first
transaction was when Narayan Choudhary, the grandson of the
recorded tenant sold 45 decimals to Mohani Devi, Daulati Devi,
Jaswa Devi and Duliya Devi. Mohani Devi and Daulati Devi then
sold their share measuring 24 decimals to Reva Mahto and Reva
Mahto subsequently sold this 24 decimals to the petitioner. Duliya
Devi sold her share of 12 decimals to respondents 1 to 3 while
Jaswa Devi subsequently sold her share of 12 decimals to the
petitioner. Respondents 1 to 3 may be co-sharers of Narayan
Choudhary but Narayan Choudhary forfeited all claims and rights
over the disputed land when he sold it in 1971. They cannot claim
to be co-sharers of the current vendor Duliya Devi. The claim of
respondents 1 to 3 of being co-sharers of the vendor is, therefore,
not maintainable.
In view of the facts of the case and the correct position of law, I
hold that both the Courts below have wrongly given the status of
co-sharers to respondents 1 to 3 and as such the orders of both the
Courts below are set aside and the application moved by the
petitioner under Section 16(3) (i) of the Bihar Land Reforms
(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act,
1961 is allowed."
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in the light
of the aforesaid submissions, it is the specific case of the petitioners,
who are the purchasers of the property, is that they were the co-sharers
of the property, and therefore, the pre-emption application filed by the
private respondent was not maintainable. It was not the case of the
petitioners that they were the adjoining raiyat of the vended property.
It is not in dispute that the petitioners claimed to be the co-sharer of
Narayan Choudhary, the ancestor of the petitioner, who had sold the
property to the extent of 45 decimals vide registered sale deed dated
02.07.1971 to Mohini Devi, Daulati Devi, Jaswa Devi and Duliya
2026:JHHC:4383
Devi and Dulia Devi is the vendor of the petitioners with respect to a
part of the property so purchased. The registered sale deed of the year
1971 was never challenged and no application seeking pre-emption
was filed with respect to the property covered by the deed of 1971.
11. Since the ancestor / co-sharers of the petitioners had already
sold the property in 1971 by registered sale deed and a portion of
which has now been purchased by petitioners through registered sale
deed dated 12.02.2002 executed by Duliya Devi in their favour, they
cannot claim to be the co-sharers of the vended property which was
already sold by their ancestor.
12. So far as the pre-emptor respondent no.5 is concerned, it is not
in dispute that they were the adjoining raiyats of the vended property
involved in the sale deed involved in this case which is dated
12.02.2002. The petitioners could have defeated the claim of the
adjoining raiyat only if the petitioners were the co-sharers of the
property as admittedly the petitioners are not claiming to be the
adjoining raiyat of the vended property.
13. This Court finds that the learned Member, Board of Revenue
has passed a detailed order holding that the petitioners, who were
respondent nos.1 to 3 before the Member Board of Revenue, cannot
claim to be the co-sharer of the vended property.
14. After having gone through the detailed discussions made by the
Member, Board of Revenue, this Court finds no perversity or error in
the discussions or the reasons as assigned by the Member, Board of
Revenue, while passing the impugned order, and there being no merit
in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed.
15. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not
pressed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
16.02.2026
Saurav/-
Uploaded on 17.02.2026
