( 2026:JHHC:11648 ) -1- W.P.(C) No. 6334 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6334 of 2011 Chhatradhari Sahu, son of Sri Rama Sahu, resident of Village- Pahara, P.S. Keredari, P.O. Hewai, District- Hazaribag … Petitioner -Versus- 1. State of Jharkhand 2. The Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 3. The Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Hazaribag, P.O., P.S. & District- Hazaribag 4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar Hazaribag, P.O., P.S. & District- Hazaribag 5. Bhikhari Sao, son of Late Rijhan Sao, resident of Village- Pahara, P.S. Keredari, P.O. Hewai, District- Hazaribag 6. Kajru Ganjhu, son of Late Budhan Ganjhu 7. Jugeshwar Ganjhu, son of Late Padum Ganjhu 8. Prithwi Ganjhu, son of Late Mangar Ganjhu 9. Nageshwar Sahu, son of Sri Chowa Sao Sl. Nos.6 to 9, all residents of Village- Pahara, P.S. Keredari, P.O. Hewai, District- Hazaribag … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, A.C. to G.P.-II For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Pathak, Advocate For Respondent Nos.6-9 : None ----- 07/20.04.2026 Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, learned counsel appearing for the State- respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Ritesh Kumar Pathak, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5. 2. Vide order dated 25.04.2025, notices have been directed to be issued to respondent nos. 5 to 9. Service report suggests that notices upon respondent nos. 5 to 8 have been received personally and notice upon respondent no.9 has received through his wife. Thus, notices upon respondent nos. 5 to 9 are deemed to be validly served, however, only respondent no.5 has appeared through his counsel and respondent nos. 6 ( 2026:JHHC:11648 ) -2- W.P.(C) No. 6334 of 2011 to 9 have chosen not to appear in this case. It has been further pointed out that respondent nos. 6 to 8 are vendors of the petitioners and respondent no.9 is second purchaser of the land in question. In view of that, this writ petition is being heard and disposed of in absence of respondent nos. 6 to 9. 3. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 24.06.2011 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby, the learned Member, Board of Revenue has been pleased to dismiss the Revision Case No.22/2009 filed by the petitioner and has affirmed the order dated 20.05.2009 passed by the Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Hazaribag in Land Ceiling Appeal Case No.1/2009 and has further directed that the sale may be executed to give operation to the right of pre-emption in favour of opposite party no.2/ respondent no.5 herein against the value of the initial sale. The prayer is also made for quashing the order dated 20.05.2009 passed by the Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Hazaribag in Land Ceiling Appeal Case No.1/2009, whereby, the learned Additional Collector has set-aside the order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribag in Land Ceiling Case No.10/2005. 4. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the land in question appertains to Khata No.42, Plot No.69 appertains to 6 decimals situated at Village- Upral, P.S. Keredari, District- Hazaribag. He further submits that the petitioner purchased the land in question from Kajru Ganjhu and others (respondent nos. 6 to 8) by way of registered sale-deed being Sale Deed No.16572 dated 27.10.2005, ( 2026:JHHC:11648 ) -3- W.P.(C) No. 6334 of 2011 for a valuable consideration of Rs.12,000/-. He then submits that the father of the petitioner, namely, Rama Sao had met with an accident on 31.10.2005 at his house situated at Hazaribag wherein his right leg got fractured and he was admitted in Bisheshwar Nursing Home at Hazaribag on 31.10.2005 and surgery was conducted upon his right leg and he was discharged from the hospital on 09.11.2005. He next submits that in light of the said accident and to meet medical and other expenses arising out of the said accident of petitioner’s father, the petitioner has executed sale-deed with respect to land in question in favour of Nageshwar Sao (respondent no.9) for a valuable consideration of Rs.50,000/-. He also submits that respondent no.5-Bhikhari Sao filed pre-emption case being L.C. Case No.10/2005 after depositing sum of Rs.13,200/- by way of Chalan dated 10.11.2005 against the sale-deed dated 27.10.2005 on the ground of being adjoining Raiyat in the Plot No.69. He further submits that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar after perusing the materials available on record and hearing the counsel for the parties, in terms of the order dated 26.12.2006 passed in L.C. Case No.10/2005 dismissed the pre-emption application filed by respondent no.5 herein. He submits that thereafter respondent no.5 preferred an appeal against the order dated 26.12.2006 before the Additional Collector, Hazaribag which was registered as L.C. Appeal Case No.14/2006-07 and vide order dated 18.06.2007, the said appeal was allowed and the appellate authority has been pleased to set-aside the order dated 26.12.2006 passed in L.C. Case No.10/2005. He then submits that petitioner challenged the said order dated 18.06.2007 by filing Revision Case No.40/2007, which was allowed ( 2026:JHHC:11648 ) -4- W.P.(C) No. 6334 of 2011 by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide order dated 12.05.2008 and the order dated 26.12.2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hazaribag as well as the order dated 18.06.2007 passed by the Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Hazaribag have been set-aside and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Hazaribag for deciding the matter afresh, after giving notices to the parties. He submits that while remanding the matter, the Member, Board of Revenue has observed that the original authority will also examine whether the 2nd transaction is sham and farzee based on the facts and circumstances. He next submits that pursuant to the said remand, after hearing the parties the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Hazaribagh vide order dated 18.12.2008 dismissed the pre-emption case being L.C. Case No.10/2005 on the ground that second transaction has also taken place. He also submits that respondent no.5 preferred an appeal being Appeal Case No.1/2009 against the order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar Hazaribag, which was allowed by the learned Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Hazaribag vide order dated 20.05.2009 and the order dated 18.12.2008 was set-aside on the ground that the petitioner has executed sale-deed dated 05.11.2005 showing excess consideration in favour of respondent no.9 only to prejudice adversely the right of pre-emption claimed by respondent no.5 and also on the ground that respondent no.5 is an adjoining Raiyat as having land in the name of his wife. He submits that aggrieved with the said order dated 20.05.2009, the petitioner preferred Revision Case No.22/2009, which was dismissed by the Member, Board of Revenue vide order dated ( 2026:JHHC:11648 ) -5- W.P.(C) No. 6334 of 2011 24.06.2011 and the order dated 20.05.2009 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Hazaribag in L.C. Appeal Case No.1/2009 was affirmed and further direction was made that the sale may be executed to give operation to the right of pre-emption in favour of respondent no.5 against the value of initial sale. 5. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the aforesaid background submits that the order dated 24.06.2011 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi is illegal, arbitrary and against the weight of evidence, available on record. He further submits that the second transaction was already taken place with regard to the land in question and in view of that, respondent no.5 was required to file any petition for transaction against second transaction, whereas, respondent no.5 has filed pre-emption case against first sale-deed which was executed on 27.10.2005 and second transaction was executed on 05.11.2009, whereas, pre-emption case was filed on 10.11.2005. To buttress this argument, he relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Anima Devi v. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1996 SCC OnLine Pat 651. He refers paragraph 8 of the said judgment, which reads as under: “8. I after having heard the parties, also perused the order passed by the respondent authorities. A bare reference to the order of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue would reveal that in fact he has completely failed to appreciate the legal position. Admittedly, the execution with regard to the second sale-deed had taken place before the filing of the petition under Section 16(3) of the Act. In such a situation, it cannot be denied that the moment, the document was finally registered, transferee got his title to the property. Therefore, simply by filing of an application in the previous proceeding his right could not have been defeated by mere finding of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue in the previous proceeding.” ( 2026:JHHC:11648 ) -6- W.P.(C) No. 6334 of 2011 6. Relying on the above judgment, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that second sale-deed was not considered in right perspective and in view of that, the impugned orders may kindly be set-aside. 7. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that there is no basis of saying that the second transaction is suspicious by the Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Hazaribag. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned orders may kindly be set- aside. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondent nos. 1 to 4 submits that after remand in the first round of litigation, pre-emption case has been dismissed, however, the appellate authority vide order dated 20.05.2009 in L.C. Appeal Case No.1/2009 has been pleased to allow the appeal and set-aside the order dated 18.12.2008 and the appellate authority has done so as the said transaction was found to be sham. He further submits that the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi has also affirmed the order passed by the appellate authority and cogent reason has been provided and in view of that, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner with regard to second transaction is fit to be rejected as second transaction has taken place within 9 days of the first transaction and there was vast difference in the consideration amount as first transaction was of Rs.12,000/-, whereas, the consideration amount of second transaction is Rs.50,000/-. On these grounds, he submits that this writ petition may kindly be dismissed. ( 2026:JHHC:11648 ) -7- W.P.(C) No. 6334 of 2011 9. Mr. Ritesh Kumar Pathak, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 also adopts the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the State and submits that respondent no.5 is the adjoining Raiyat and in terms of Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act, 1961, the pre-emption petition is required to be filed within 3 months and in light of that the pre- emption petition was already filed on 10.11.2005, whereas, the first transaction was taken place on 27.10.2005. He next submits that respondent no.5 did not know about the second transaction and the pre- emption petition was filed by depositing money in terms of Section 16(3) of the aforesaid Act adding 10% of the first transaction i.e. total Rs.13,200/-. He then submits that once the right is accrued in light of the statute in favour of respondent no.5, the same was required to be maintained and the learned Courts in the second round of litigation has rightly passed the orders and, as such, this writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 10. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the impugned orders as well as the orders passed in earlier proceeding. The petitioner purchased the land in question from Kajru Ganjhu and others (respondent nos. 6 to 8) by way of registered sale-deed being Sale Deed No.16572 dated 27.10.2005, for a valuable consideration of Rs.12,000/-. The father of the petitioner, namely, Rama Sao had met with an accident on 31.10.2005 at his house situated at Hazaribag wherein his right leg got fractured and he was admitted in Bisheshwar Nursing Home at Hazaribag on 31.10.2005 and surgery was conducted upon his right leg and he was discharged from the hospital on 09.11.2005. To manage medical and other ( 2026:JHHC:11648 ) -8- W.P.(C) No. 6334 of 2011 expenses arising out of the said accident of petitioner’s father, the petitioner has executed sale-deed with respect to land in question in favour of Nageshwar Sao (respondent no.9) for a valuable consideration of Rs.50,000/-. In the first round of litigation, respondent no.5-Bhikhari Sao filed pre-emption case being L.C. Case No.10/2005 by adding 10% of the consideration amount i.e. total sum of Rs.13,200/- by way of Chalan dated 10.11.2005 against the sale-deed dated 27.10.2005 on the ground of being adjoining Raiyat in the Plot No.69. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar vide order dated 26.12.2006 passed in L.C. Case No.10/2005 dismissed the pre- emption application filed by respondent no.5. Thereafter respondent no.5 preferred an appeal against the order dated 26.12.2006 before the Additional Collector, Hazaribag which was registered as L.C. Appeal Case No.14/2006-07 and vide order dated 18.06.2007, the said appeal was allowed and the appellate authority has been pleased to set-aside the order dated 26.12.2006 passed in L.C. Case No.10/2005. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 18.06.2007 by filing Revision Case No.40/2007, which was allowed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide order dated 12.05.2008 and the order dated 26.12.2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hazaribag as well as the order dated 18.06.2007 passed by the Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Hazaribag have been set-aside and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Hazaribag for deciding the matter afresh, after giving notices to the parties and it was observed that the original authority will also examine whether the 2nd transaction is sham and forged based on the facts and circumstances. ( 2026:JHHC:11648 ) -9- W.P.(C) No. 6334 of 2011 11. In the second round of litigation after remand of the matter, the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Hazaribagh vide order dated 18.12.2008 dismissed the pre-emption case being L.C. Case No.10/2005 on the ground that second transaction has also taken place. The learned Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Hazaribag vide order dated 20.05.2009 has allowed the Appeal Case No.1/2009, preferred by respondent no.5 by way of providing finding that only to frustrate the right of respondent no.5, the second transaction has been made, however, respondent no.5 was found to be adjoining Raiyat. The order dated 20.05.2009 was challenged by the petitioner by filing Revision Case No.22/2009 before the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi and the learned Member, Board of Revenue has been pleased to dismiss the said revision case holding that second transaction was sham and forged. 12. Thus, it is an admitted position that first transaction has taken place on 27.10.2005 and in terms of that transaction, pre-emption petition was already filed by respondent no.5 on 10.11.2005 by way of depositing 10% more amount of the executed sale-deed i.e. total to the tune of Rs.13,200/-. It has been pointed out that second transaction was not known to respondent no.5. The two of the authorities have held that second transaction was sham and forged and respondent no.5 was said to be an adjoining Raiyat. 13. The way second transaction has taken place by way of enhancing the consideration amount to the tune of Rs.50,000/- that too within a period of 9 days clearly suggests that right accrued in favour of respondent no.5 was tried to be taken away by way of second transaction and the second ( 2026:JHHC:11648 ) -10- W.P.(C) No. 6334 of 2011 transaction was not known to respondent no.5. 14. There is no doubt that right of pre-emption is a weak right, as has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, but at the same time, the Court is required to consider that the said right is arising out of the statute. 15. Respondent no.5 being an adjoining Raiyat had a statutory right of pre-emption under Section 16(3) of the Act. As the language of Section 16(3)(i) shows any co-sharer “shall be entitled” within three months of the date of registration of the document of the 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 transfer deed. It is not disputed that the respondent no.5 in fact made such an application within three months of the date of registration of sale-deed executed by the vendor on 27.10.2005 and also deposited the money adding 10% thereof in the prescribed manner within a period of three months as provided in the proviso of Section 16(3)(i) of the Act. Thus, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms has no discretion but to allow the application considering the mandatory nature of the right of pre-emption conferred by Section 16(3) of the Act. 16. A five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 24 held that where a right of pre-emption is recognized by statute, it has to be treated as mandatory and not discretionary and that has been considered in the case of Suresh Prasad Singh v. Dulhin Phulkumari Devi and others, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 441, wherein, in paragraph 20 it has been held ( 2026:JHHC:11648 ) -11- W.P.(C) No. 6334 of 2011 as under: “20. The learned Single Judge deciding the writ petition and the Division Bench of the High Court deciding the L.P.A. appear to have taken a view that the right of pre-emption is a weak right, presumably because the Division Bench of Patna High Court in Sudama Devi v. Rajendra Singh (AIR 1973 Patna 199) and learned Single Judge in Ram Pravesh Singh v. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue and Others (supra), has taken this view. Whatever may have been the views of the Patna High Court and this Court in the earlier decisions cited by learned counsel for the respondent No.1, a five Judge Bench of this Court in Shaym Sunder & Ors. v. Ram Kumar & Anr. (supra) has now held that where a right of pre-emption is recognized by statute, it has to be treated as mandatory and not discretionary. The relevant passage from the judgment in Shaym Sunder & Ors. v. Ram Kumar & Anr. (supra) is quoted herein below: "17. .............The right of pre-emption of a co- sharer is an incident of property attached to the land itself. It is some sort of encumbrance carrying with the land which can be enforced by or against the co- owner of the land. The main object behind the right of pre-emption, either based on custom or statutory law, is to prevent intrusion of a stranger into the family- holding or property. A co-sharer under the law of pre- emption has right to substitute himself in place of a stranger in respect of a portion of the property purchased by him, meaning thereby that where a co- sharer transfers his share in holding, the other co- sharer has right to veto such transfer and thereby prevent the stranger from acquiring the holding in an area where the law of pre-emption prevails. Such a right at present may be characterisd as archaic, feudal and outmoded but this was law for nearly two centuries, either based on custom or statutory law. It is in this background the right of pre-emption under statutory law has been held to be mandatory and not mere discretionary........" Thus, even if there has been a long lapse of 19 years, the High Court could not have rejected the claim of the appellant for pre-emption when the claim was recognized by the statute, had been lodged in accordance with the statute and within the time prescribed by the statute and in the manner provided by the statute.” 17. So far as the judgment relied by Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of Anima Devi v. State of Bihar (supra) is concerned, in that case the present fact was not there and the second transaction in that case was not taken place within 9 days ( 2026:JHHC:11648 ) -12- W.P.(C) No. 6334 of 2011 and in view of that, the said judgment is not helping the petitioner. 18. For the aforesaid reasons and considering that the second transaction was found to be sham and forged and that has taken place within 9 days of the first transaction and second transaction was not known to respondent no.5 and the pre-emption petition was already filed in light of Section 16(3)(i) of the Act by way of depositing 10% of the enhanced amount within a few days of the first transaction i.e. on 10.11.2005, whereas, first transaction was taken place on 27.10.2005 and in that view of the matter, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the learned authorities and, as such, no interference is required by this Court. 19. Accordingly, this writ petition is, hereby, dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 20th April, 2026 Ajay/ A.F.R. Uploaded on 23rd April, 2026