2025:JHHC:15020 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 844 of 2022 ….….. Binod Gope, aged about 42 years, S/o Sri Nakul Gope, R/o Village-Pokhri, P.O.-Bhilai Pahari, P.S. Mango, District-East Singhbhum. ..… Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O.+P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. Deputy Commissioner, East Singbhum, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, District-East Singbhum. 4. D.C.L.R. Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, District-East Singbhum. 5. Shankar Gorai. 6. Kinkar Gorai. 7. Subal Gorai No.5 to 7, all sons of late Govinda Gorai, Resident of Village-Simuldanga, P.O. Bhilai Pahari, P.S.-M.G.M. (Mango), District-East Singbhum. 8. Ulasi Gorai, W/o Late Sanatan Gorai, resident of Repeat Colony, P.O.+P.S. Mango, District-East Singbbhum. ..... Respondents ….….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Adv For the Res.-State : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to AAG-III For the Res. Nos. 5 to 7 : Mr. H. K. Mahto, Adv ….….. C.A.V. ON 04/04/2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 09/05/2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant writ petition, the Petitioner has assiailed the Order dated 10.12.2021, passed by the 2nd Respondent in Revision Case No. 01/2018 (Annexure – 6), by which the Revisional Court has dismissed the Revision and has confirmed the Order dated 08.12.2017 (Annexure-4) passed by 3rd Respondent in L.C. Appeal Case No. 61/2015-16 whereby the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the 2025:JHHC:15020 2 Petitioner. The Petitioner has also challenged the original order dated 11.1.2016 (Annexure-3) passed by 4th Respondent in L.C. case No. 3/2009-10, whereby he allowed the Petition under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 filed by the 5th to 7th Respondents. 3. The brief facts leading to the instant writ petition is that the Petitioner purchased a piece of land under Khata No. 69, Plot No. 277, Area:18.34 Decimals, situated in Mouza Simaldanga, P.S. M.G.M. (Mango), Thana No. 1143, District - East Singhbhum, from the 8th Respondent namely Ulasi Gorai vide registered Sale Deed No. 574/474 dated 29.1.2010 for a consideration amount of Rs. 62,000/-. Against the said transfer, the Respondents no. 5 to 7 filed a L.C. Case No. 3/2009-10 under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 before D.C.L.R Dhaldhum, Jamshedpur (The 4th Respondent). The D.C.L.R allowed the pre-emption application of Respondent no. 5 to 7 vide order dated 10.9.2010 on the ground that these Respondents are adjoining raiyat: whereas the Petitioner is not a coparcener or co-sharer of the land in dispute (Annexure 1). Aggrieved by the order of 4th Respondent, the Petitioner preferred an appeal, being L.C. Appeal Case No. 73/2010-11, before the 3rd Respondent. The Deputy Commissioner, East 2025:JHHC:15020 3 Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, vide its Order dated 8.6.2011, remanded the case to the Court of learned D.C.L.R Dhaldhum, Jamshedpur (4th Respondent), for a fresh hearing and order as the nature of the land described as "Gora" and Gora does not come under agricultural land. The Seller (8th Respondent) is a widow, and she being in need of money was constrained to sell her share, and before executing the sale deed in favour of the Petitioner, she approached Respondents no. 5 to 7, but Respondents no. 5 to 7 refused to purchase whereupon she sold the land to the present Petitioner (Annexure 2). After the remand, the D.C.L.R., Dhaldhum, Jamshedpur, re- heard the case and again allowed the pre-emption claim of the Respondents no. 5 to 7 in L.C. Case No. 3/2009-10 vide order dated 11.1.2016 (Annexure 3). The order dated 11.1.2016 passed in L.C. Case No. 03/2009-10 passed by learned D.C.L.R Dhaldhum, Jamshedpur was assailed by the Petitioner by filing an appeal being L.C. Appeal No. 61/2015-16 before the 3rd Respondent. L.C. Appeal No. 61/2015-16 filed by the Petitioner was dismissed and the order passed by learned D.C.L.R Dhaldhum, Jamshedpur was affirmed(Annexure 4). Against the order dated 8.12.2017 passed in L.C. Appeal No. 61/2015-16, the Petitioner filed a revision being Revision Case No. 01/2018 before the 2nd Respondent. During course of the proceeding he has also called for a report from the Circle Officer, 2025:JHHC:15020 4 Mango. The Circle Officer submitted a report vide letter dated 23.12.2020 (Annexure-5). The 2nd Respondent (Board of Revenue), vide order dated 10.12.2021, dismissed the Revision Case No. 01/2018, upholding the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and thus also affirming the order passed by D.C.L.R., whereby he had allowed the preemption application of Respondent nos. 5 to 7. 4. The specific case of the Petitioner as stated in para 13 of the writ petition that though the Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi, called for a report from the Circle Officer Mango, he dismissed the revision without considering the said report. 5. The 3rd & 4th Respondents have filed Counter Affidavit and supported the impugned orders. The said Respondents replied to a statement made in para 13 of the writ petition, stating that the member of the Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi, after considering the report of Circle Officer Mango, lawfully dismissed the Revision Case No. 01/2018 on 10.12.2021, as there was no irregularity or reason to interfere in the order of Deputy Commissioner East Singhbhum Jamshedpur. 6. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of 5th to 7th Respondents, whereby they supported the orders passed by the authorities. The said Respondents have stated in para 5 as under: “That all the orders from the courts below have found and observed that the petitioners are co-sharers and adjacent to the land in question and the writ petitioner is a stranger and not even from his village, moreover being found in the enquiry also that the land in question is an agricultural land and the writ petitioner could not prove his case at any place that he is even an adjacent raiyat or co-sharer, the courts 2025:JHHC:15020 5 below have found the purchase of the land in question is wrong and hence the orders passed under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 is quite in accordance with law and requires no interference by this Hon'ble Court in the given facts.” 7. On the other hand, the Petitioner has consistently taken the stand that they have validly purchased the said land. 8. Having heard learned counsels for the rival parties and after going through respective affidavits and the documents annexed therein, it appears that the application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 has been filed by the Respondent no. 5 to 7. For brevity the said Section 16(3) is quoted hereinbelow: “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 co-sharer 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. 9. Thus, from bare perusal of the aforesaid Section, it appears that if any land is transferred, then if a raiyat of the adjoining land invokes the right of Pre-emption he has to establish that adjoining land is agricultural land. 2025:JHHC:15020 6 10. As such, while dealing with the right of pre-emption, it is the primary duty of the concerned authorities to find out whether both, i.e., the land transferred and adjoining land, are both agricultural land or not. Thus, even if one of the 2 lands i.e., the land transferred or the adjoining land is not an agricultural land; then the adjoining landholder would not have the right to claim pre-emption. 11. The right of pre-emption is not for increasing or accumulating the land. It is only for the purpose to stop or restrict fragmentation of agricultural holdings without financial prejudice to the raiyat transferring his agricultural holding. The said provision therefore wouldn’t apply to any land which is not being used for agriculture or not fit for agriculture or with passage of time has changed its character from agricultural to non- agricultural or commercial. 12. In the instant case, neither the original authority nor the appellate authority carried out any such investigation, therefore, the Revisional authority vide its order dated 01.12.2020, directed the Circle Officer Mango to investigate the nature of the land and send its report. 13. In response to the aforementioned directive, the Circle Officer, Mango submitted a report on December 23, 2020. It was reported that in Survey Khatian of 1964, the land in question bearing Khata no. 69, Plot no. 277, was recorded as “Gora”, and one house was built over it. He added that there was cauliflower 2025:JHHC:15020 7 cultivation on the aforementioned land. The land had following boundary: North: a concrete roadway, and across the street there is a road to a barren area. South: Portion of Plot no. 277 East: Sufal Gorai's (i.eRespondent no. 7) concrete home. West: Barren land and house of Shankar Gorai (i.e. Respondent no. 5) 14. Thus, from the perusal of said report, it is crystal clear that in the land transferred as well as land belonging to Respondent nos. 5 to 7, there are three concrete houses existing, and the land left is barren land. The Petitioner is cultivating cauliflower in the portion of his purchased land; thus, it was absolutely clear that neither the transferred land nor the adjoining land was used for agricultural purposes; rather, it was used for residential purposes. 15. Interestingly, though the Revisional authority had himself called for the report the Circle Officer, Mango with regard to the nature of the land. The report submitted by Circle Officer Mango, revealed the fact that the land was not agricultural land. Unfortunately the Revisional authority while passing the impugned order ignored the report on the ground that the report was not prepared in the presence of the parties, after due notice and therefore the report cannot be relied upon. 16. Once the Revisional Authority had called for a report and the same suggested that inquiry regarding the nature of the land was 2025:JHHC:15020 8 necessary for deciding the application for pre-emption, he could not have discarded the reports simply by stating that the same was not prepared in the presence of the parties. If he found that the said report was not prepared in the presence of the party, he ought to have called for a fresh report after due notice to the parties. This has not been done by the Revisional Authority; rather, the impugned order passed by the revisional authority, simply discarded the report, which is illegal, and therefore the same requires interference. As a matter of fact, none of the authorities have enquired into the nature of the land transferred as well as the nature of the adjoining land, and therefore all 3 orders are bad and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 17. Article 300A of the Constitution of India stipulates that a person has a right to property; therefore, a person has the right to acquire and dispose of the property. A person can be deprived of his property only by following due process of law. Therefore, if the Petitioner has purchased the property, then he can be deprived of the property only after the person claiming the right to pre- emption strictly complies with the condition laid down in Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgement rendered by Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Nathuni Singh Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2025:JHHC:15020 9 reported in 1997 SCC OnLine Pat 182. Relevant paragraphs are extracted hereinbelow: 7. In Mukhi Mali v. State of Bihar (1997 BBCJ 151) it has been held that application for pre-emption will lie only when all the three parties, the transferor, the transferee and the pre-emptor are landholders. The following observation may be quoted from paragraph 8 of the judgment:— “In the case of Kamala Kanta Goswami v. Balagobind Sah (1971 BLJR 974) it was held that the land must be a land which is either used or capable of being used for agricultural and horticultural purpose and even if it is homestead it must be of a land holder as defined in Section 2(g). It is very clear from the observations that if the land is not homestead of a land holder that is a Raiyat engaged in agriculture it will not be a “land” within the meaning of the Act and the provision of Section 16(3) will not be applicable to it. This decision was affirmed later on by a Full Bench of this Court in Fakir Mohammad v. Salahuddin (AIR 1975 Patna 119) where the same view was expressed and it was observed that “homestead” must be a homestead of the land holder. In view of the above authoritative decisions it is not necessary to dilate on the question inasmuch as on the facts it is clear that the vended land cannot be held to be a “land” of a land holder within the meaning of the Act and once it is so held the provision of Section 16(3) of the Act would have no application.” 8. These observations were made in the context of vendor and not the vendee. But it is well known that right of pre-emption is a weak right which can be defeated by any legitimate means (See Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh : AIR 1958 Supreme Court 838). 9. It should be kept in mind that the right of pre-emption, although created by statute, is a clog on the right of a person to acquire land. In Radhakishan Laxminarayan Toshniwal v. Shridhar Ramchandra Alshi (AIR 1960 Supreme Court 1368) it has been observed: “There are no equities in favour of a pre-emptor, whose sole object is to obstruct a valid transaction by virtue of the rights created in him by statutes.” (Emphasis supplied) 18. In this instant case, unless the authorities determine the nature of the land transferred as well as the adjoining land are both agricultural lands, the Petitioner cannot be deprived of his purchased property. Right of pre-emption is a weak right and the authorities while adjudicating the claim of Pre-emption must strictly adhere to the requirement of law. 19. In the case at hand, from bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent it is evident that the Circle Officer, Mango vide its letter no.1149 dated 23.12.2020 had informed that nature of land is “Goda”. The Revisional authority has observed that the report was not prepared in presence of 2025:JHHC:15020 10 parties after due notice and discarded the report instead of returning a finding on the nature of the land. Interestingly, after observing the same, he has sustained the Orders of lower authorities which is certainly perverse in nature. When he has already held that C.O. has not prepared the said report in presence of parties and the other subordinate authorities have also not conducted any field verification; then the revisional authority should have remanded the case for proper verification; however, instead of doing so he just affirmed the orders passed the subordinate revenue authorities. The impugned orders suffers from non-determination of the main issue as to whether the land in question is agricultural or not and Revisional authority discarded the report of Circle officer without assigning any plausible reason. 20. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned Orders i.e. Original order passed by D.C.L.R. passed in L.C. case No. 3/2009-10 on 11.1.2016 (Annexure 3), Order dated 8.12.2017 passed by Deputy Commissioner in L.C. Appeal Case No. 61/2015-16 (Annexure 4) and Order dated 10.12.2021 passed by the Court of Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi, in Revision Case No. 01/2018 (Annexure – 6), are hereby, quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the 4th Respondent i.e. D.C.L.R. Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur; who shall get a fresh report from Circle Officer, Mango on the nature of the land being transferred and the 2025:JHHC:15020 11 adjoining land after a physical verification of subject land is carried out in presence of all the affected parties after giving fully opportunity of hearing to them by the Circle Officer, Mango who shall then handover the fresh report to the Petitioner as well as to the 5th to 7th Respondents. Subsequently, the 4th Respondent- D.C.L.R. Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur shall decide the issue in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the parties. The affected party would be at liberty to proceed thereafter, if so advised. 21. As a result, the instant writ application stands disposed of in the manner indicated hereinabove. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any stand closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/ A.F.R