2026:JHHC:22655 Page No. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4971 of 2019 Sumitra Devi wife of Sri Ganga Ram Nayak, aged about 55 years, resident of Village Dantoo, P.O., P.S. Kasmar, Dist. Bokaro, at present r/o Village Bahadurpur, P.O., PS, Jaridih, Dist. Bokaro. ....Petitioner(s). -Versus- 1. Sashi Shekhar son of Ram Krishna Rai, 2. Ravi Shankar son of Ram Krishna Rai, Both resident of Village Bahadurpur, P.O., P.S. Jaridih, Dist. Bokaro. 3. Dineshwar Prasad Jaiswal son of Late Arun Prasad Jaiswal, resident of Village Khairachatar, P.O., P.S. Kasmar, Dist. Bokaro. … Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate Ms. Rishi Bharti, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Kr. Roy, Advocate ----- 18/29.07.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following relief :- “For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for quashing and setting aside the order dt. 07.06.19 (Annexure 3) passed by Sri Indu Shekhar Chaturvedi, Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand in Revision Case No. 43/2017 which has upheld the order dt. 26.08.17 (Annexure 2) passed by the Learned Additional Collector, Bokaro in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 18/2016 dismissing the pre-emption case and thereby to uphold the pre-emption order dt. 03.05.16 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bermo at Tenughat in Land Ceiling Case No. 1 / 2015 whereby the land was directed to be transferred to the petitioner.” 2. The dispute relates to 4 decimals of land situated at Khata No. 1, Plot No. 529, Village Bahadurpur, District Bokaro, which was sold by the recorded owner to respondent nos. 1 and 2 through a registered sale deed no. 1712 dated 12.03.2015. The petitioner claims to be an adjoining raiyat, having purchased adjoining portions of the same plot through registered sale deed no. 3714 executed on 12.10.1992 and registered sale deed no. 1717 executed on 14.06.1995. The petitioner instituted the Land Ceiling Case No. 1 of 2015 before the LRDC claiming a statutory right of pre-emption under Section 16(3) of the Bihar (Jharkhand) Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. By order dated 03.05.2016, the 2026:JHHC:22655 Page No. 2 LRDC allowed the application, holding that the petitioner was an adjoining raiyat and the purchasers were neither adjoining raiyats nor co-sharers. The Respondents no. 1 and 2 preferred Land Ceiling Appeal No. 18 of 2016, wherein the Additional Collector reversed the LRDC's order, holding that the land was residential in nature and, therefore, Section 16(3) was inapplicable. The petitioner's filed a revision being Revision Case no.43/2017 before the Board of Revenue, Ranchi which was dismissed on 07.06.2019, substantially affirming the findings of the Appellate Authority. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an admitted adjoining raiyat and, therefore, fulfilled the statutory requirements for claiming pre-emption under Section 16(3) of the 1961 Act. It was contended that the land continued to be agricultural/vacant land and there was no material establishing any lawful conversion into homestead or residential land. The authorities erroneously inferred change in the nature of the land merely because of its proximity to National Highway and nearby residential constructions, without any evidence of actual residential use. The sale deed itself indicates that the land was capable of agricultural use, and the authorities failed to correctly appreciate the definition of "land" under Section 2(f) of the Act. The Learned Additional Collector and Member, Board of Revenue have not considered that as per the Sale Deed in favour of the respondent nos. 1 and 2, the vendor has specifically stated that he authorized the purchasers to derive income and cultivation for their own usage. The appellate authority allegedly relied upon spot inspection and additional materials without proper appreciation of the statutory requirements governing pre-emption. It is further submitted that the appeal before the Additional Collector was barred by limitation and was entertained without any formal application or order condoning the delay. The Board of Revenue mechanically affirmed the appellate order without independently examining the statutory right of pre-emption and the findings of the LRDC. The impugned orders are therefore stated to be arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Act and liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that Section 16(3) applies only to transfers of agricultural land, whereas the land in question is residential in nature. The findings of the Additional Collector are based upon spot inspection, the Circle Officer's report and the recitals in the sale deed, all of which indicate that the land was fit for residential use and situated adjacent 2026:JHHC:22655 Page No. 3 to National Highway No. 23. It is contended that the small extent of the land and the surrounding residential development demonstrate that the property was not being used for agricultural purposes. The petitioner failed to establish that either the transferred land or her adjoining land was actually under cultivation which is, an essential requirement for claiming the status of adjoining raiyat under Section 16(3). The Board of Revenue affirmed the appellate findings after considering the entire record and found no illegality warranting interference. The objection regarding limitation is purely technical, as the appeal was entertained and decided on merits, implying condonation of delay. Accordingly, the respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition and affirmation of the impugned orders. 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the principal contention of the petitioner is that she is an adjoining raiyat and, therefore, had a statutory right of pre-emption over the land transferred in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2. It has further been contended that the appellate authority wrongly held the land to be residential in nature and that the appeal itself was barred by limitation. The materials on record disclose that the Additional Collector conducted a spot inspection and also considered the report of the Circle Officer, which revealed that the land in question is situated adjacent to National Highway-23 and is surrounded by residential houses and commercial establishments. The registered sale deed itself records that the land is fit for residential use. These circumstances were rightly relied upon by the authorities in arriving at the conclusion that the land had acquired a residential character and, therefore, did not attract the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Act. 6. Merely because the land was lying vacant on the date of transfer does not necessarily establish that it continued to retain the character of agricultural land. The surrounding circumstances, location of the land, the recitals contained in the sale deed and the official inspection reports constitute relevant materials for determining the true nature of the land. The petitioner has failed to produce any cogent material to establish that the land in question or the adjoining land owned by her was being used for agricultural purposes. The concurrent findings recorded by the Appellate and Revisional authorities are based on appreciation of evidence based on facts and does not call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 2026:JHHC:22655 Page No. 4 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Singh v. Khacheru, reported in (2025) 3 SCC 266 in paragraph-16 has held as under:- “16. It is a well-established principle that the High Court, while exercising its jurisdicƟon under ArƟcle 226 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India, cannot reappreciate the evidence and arrive at a finding of facts unless the authoriƟes below had either exceeded its jurisdicƟon or acted perversely. 8. Further, the right of pre-emption is very weak right. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sib Nath Chatterjee Versus Tulsidas Chatterjee and Others reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 665 in paragraph 19 has held as under:- “19. Upon consideraƟon of various decisions of this Court, in our view, what is seƩled is that the right of pre-empƟon is a weak right. There are no equiƟes in favor of the pre-emptor. As a result, such right can be defeated by any lawful means. Besides, it is considered a clog on the right of the owner to alienate his property, therefore, the right, if conferred by a statute, must be exercised strictly in terms of the statute. As a sequitur, the statute conferring the right of pre-empƟon is to be construed strictly and not liberally.” 9. The land is only four decimals, which is equivalent to 1742.4 sq feet. This small area by no means can be said to be agricultural land. The contention regarding limitation is also without merit as the delay stood impliedly condoned. 10. Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity in the order dated 26.08.2017 passed by the Additional Collector, Bokaro or in the order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand affirming the same. 11. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 29th July, 2026 Anu-SKC/-Cp2. Uploaded on:03.08.2026