Uma Shankar Das vs Putul Devi And Ors

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order passed by the Member Board of Revenue, Jharkhand in case No.18 of 2016 dated 09.03.2018.

It is the case of the petitioner that a petition under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, but Deputy Collector Land Reforms by initiating a proceeding being L.C. Case No.01/2010-11 has allowed the pre-emption application with a direction upon the petitioner to transfer the land in favour of the applicant namely, Smt. Putul Devi, against which the petitioner has preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of the District being L.C. Appeal No.19 of 2010-11 wherein the appellate Court after taking into consideration the factual aspect to the effect that the land in question has been sold out by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.2 by virtue of sale of deed dated 20th May, 2010 and thereafter one title suit was filed being Title Suit No.17 of 2010 in which decree was passed on the basis of compromise entered in between the parties of the aforesaid suit and therefore, the order passed by the D.C.L.R. under its original jurisdiction has been quashed by holding therein that since the property in question has already been sold out in favour of the respondent No.2 by virtue of the sale of deed and who is not willing to sell out the property, hence, he cannot be compelled to transfer the land, however, with an observation that if in future it would be sold out, the same would be transferred in favour of Smt. Putul Devi as per the provision of Section 16(3) of Act, 1961. The respondent No.2 being aggrieved with the aforesaid order has preferred revision before the Board of Revenue and the revisional authority after taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter has reached to the conclusion as would be evident from paragraph No.15 which reads as follows:-

"15. After hearing the learned counsels and careful perusal of the documents on record, I come to the following conclusions.

(i) The concerned sale deed was executed on 20.5.2010. The petitioner has filed his pre-emption petition before the D.C.L.R., Seraikela who had passed his order on 20.9.2010 directing the OP No.3 to transfer the land in favour of the petitioner.

(ii) The Title Suit No. TS 17/2010 was filed after the said order of D.C.L.R., Seraikela.

(iii) That OP No.3 (who is seller of the land in question) has clearly stated in the Registered Sale Deed No.2669 dated 20.5.2010.

"Whereas the landed property mentioned in the schedule below is owned and possessed by the above named seller, which he purchased by a Sale Deed No.2835 dated 11.12.1963 and he mutated his name vide Mutation Case No.57/72-73 and since then he has been in peaceful physical possession over the same without any interruption from any corner whatsoever."

Now OP No.3 in his reply in the instant Revision, is claiming that the said plot was purchased by his father and is part of joint property of his brothers and him.

(iv) That a compromise petition between parties can not cancel the registered sale deed 2669/2010 dated 20.05.2010 which still exists in the record of the Registry Office."

On the basis of the aforesaid conclusion, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Saraikela, Khasawan in L.C. Appeal No.19/2010-11 has been set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after quashing the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner now the respondent No.2 is pursuing the issue for enforcement of the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms in L.C. Case No.01/2010-11.

This Court after looking to the conclusion recorded by the Member Board of Revenue as is evident from paragraph 15, more particularly, point (iv) wherein it has been stated, "that a compromise petition between parties can not cancel the registered sale deed 2669/2010 dated 20.05.2010 which still exists in the record of the Registry Office", how he can sell out the property in favour of the respondent No.2. He has submitted that the execution case has been filed for implementation/execution of the order passed by the D.C.L.R. In L.C. Case No.01/2010-11.

Learned counsel at this juncture seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with a liberty to approach before the Member Board of Revenue for clarification of the aforesaid order.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.