19 and 20 of 1973.
The present respondent No.
After dismissal of the two writ petitions, the purchaser plaintiff appellant herein filed Title Suit No.
The plaintiff i.e. purchaser filed objection.
By judgment dated 11th October, 1991, the writ petitions were dismissed.
respondent No.1 in the present appeal, was rejected.
Thereafter the appeals bearing Nos.
162 of 1992 by which the Objection Petition, filed by the defendant Petitioner before the High Court viz.
Factual position in a nutshell is as follows Two pre emption applications under Section 16 3 of the Act were filed by the pre emptier defendant Respondent No.1, herein.
5970 and 5971 of 1983 and raised an issue relating to jurisdiction of the Authorities under the Act.
1 appeared and filed a petition before the Court below relating to maintainability of the suit.
162 of 1992 in the Court of Munsif, Bikramganj for declaration that the orders passed by the Ceiling Court in Ceiling Case Nos.
The Deputy Commissioner of Lands Reforms, Sasaram rejected both the Petitions.
The High Court by a companymon order and judgment dated 11th October, 1991 dismissed the writ petitions.
19 20 of 1973 were without jurisdiction and number binding on the purchaser.
They were registered as Ceiling Case Nos.
49 of 1974 and 52 of 1975 were filed which were allowed by learned Additional Collector.
Purchaser plaintiff, the appellant herein, challenged the same up to the High Court in CWJC Nos.
Before the High Court challenge was to the order passed by learned Munsif, Bikramganj in T.S. No.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court dismissing the Civil Revision filed and the order in the Review Petition.
His stand was that in view of Section 43 of the Bihar Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land Act, 1961 in short the Act the suit was incompetent.
