That the onus was on the pre emptor to prove that the second sale deed was executed only for the purpose of avoiding pre emption and to defeat the provisions of the Act and that it was a sham transaction, which pre emptor had failed to prove.
However, after companysidering the evidence on record, the Deputy Collector found Chandrika Singh to be a raiyat of adjoining lands to the lands in question.
However, this sale deed was registered on 31st of August, 1984.
Paras Sah had filed his written objection to the application for pre emption on 9th of August, 1984 in which he alleged that the lands in question had already been transferred in favour of Ghurla Kuer vide Sale Deed dated 12th October 1983.
According to Paras Sah, since he had transferred the property in the name of Ghurla Kuer, the application for pre emption companyld number be maintained against him.
It was also alleged that the possession of the lands in question was never transferred to Smt.
Ghurla Kuer died issueless leaving Paras Sah as the only legal heir and representative.
Ghurla Kuer for a companysideration of Rs.4000/ .
It was also pleaded that, in view of the admitted fact that Smt.
Ghurla Kuer did number challenge the order of pre emption.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Collector, Paras Sah filed a petition under Section 32 of the Act before the Board of Revenue which was also rejected.
Ghurla Kuer, the second purchaser, had number got the possession of the lands in question.
Ghurla Kuer, the second purchaser, and that there was numbernecessity to implead Smt.
Accordingly, the Deputy Collector, accepting the submissions of Chandrika Singh, allowed the pre emption application.
It may be numbered herein that Smt.
The sale deed executed by Arvind Kumar Singh in favour of Mr.Paras Sah on 10th of August, 1983 was registered on 14th of June, 1984.
No other evidence was adduced by the pre emptor to show that the second sale deed was a sham transaction and that the sale companysideration was number paid and also that Smt.
Ghurla Kuer, the second purchaser and a relative of Paras Sah, filed a Writ application before the High Court at Patna, praying for setting aside the orders passed by the tribunals below.
In the light of the above, the land must be re conveyed to the Writ Petitioner.
It was also held that the pre emptor, Chandrika Singh, companyld number have maintained the pre emption application under Section 16 3 of the Act before registration of the first sale deed as Section 16 3 of the Act clearly provides that the pre emption application can only be filed within three months from the date of registration of the document of transfer.
It may be numbered that Paras Sah did number appear before the companylector to proceed with the appeal.
Chandrika Singh also pleaded that the abnormal jump in the sale price to the extent of 4 times, in just two months, had shown that the second transaction was sham in nature.
Ghurla Kuer was a sham transaction and numberconsideration had passed.
On the basis of the above, the order of the learned single Judge need number be interfered with and the appeal is dismissed.
Chandrika Singh, the pre emptor, feeling aggrieved by the orders of the High Court of Patna, filed a special leave petition before this Court, which was heard by us on grant of leave, in the presence of the learned companynsel for both the parties.
Feeling aggrieved, Paras Sah filed an appeal before the Collector.
2679 measuring 17 dhurs in village Bhatwaliya, P.S. Gobindganj, district East Champaran and Plot No.
In his written objection, Paras Sah had also denied that the pre emptor, Chandrika Singh, was rayiat of adjoining lands.
25 measuring 1 dhurs in village Sarotar in the State of Bihar hereinafter referred to as the lands in question executed a sale deed on 10th of August, 1983, transferring the same in favour of one Shri Paras Sah for a companysideration of Rs.1000/ .
Then Smt.
Before the Deputy Collector, Chandrika Singh pleaded that the sale deed executed by Paras Sah in favour of Smt.
The Collector by a judgment and order dated 6th November, 1984 dismissed the appeal only on the ground that Paras Sah, who was appellant in that appeal, had numberinterest to proceed with the same.
Ghurla Kuer in the pre emption application.
2628 measuring 10 dhurs, Plot No.
Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by learned Single Judge, allowing the Writ application and rejecting the application for pre emption, Chandrika Singh filed an appeal against Paras Sah and others.
Ghurla Kuer was a sham transaction and it was only executed to defeat pre emption under the Act.
The Deputy Collector after hearing the parties and after companysidering the facts on record allowed the pre emption application of Chandrika Singh, appellant herein, holding that the sale to Smt.
Ghurla Kuer was an issueless widow and own aunt of Paras Sah and also belonged to the same joint family, it must be held that the sale deed was executed only for the purpose of avoiding pre emption and to defeat the provisions of law.
It may also be numbered that in appeal, Paras Sah had made Ghurla Kuer a respondent for the first time.
As numbered herein earlier, Smt.
At this stage, we may also point out that before the Deputy Collector, Collector and Board of Revenue, Smt.
The Writ Court, however, allowed the Writ application and set aside the order of pre emption by holding, in substance, as under Since the subsequent sale deed was executed on 12/10/1983, i.e. 10 months prior to the filing of the pre emption application and since there is numberother evidence, it cannot be presumed that the second sale deed which was executed on 12/10/1983 was to defeat any pre emption when there was numberpre emption application pending on that date.
Ghurla Kuer for the first time challenged the orders of the Deputy Collector, Collector and Board of Revenue, by filing a Writ application in the High Court.
The Division Bench by its judgment dated 9th September, 1999, affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge holding, in substance, as under In support of the companytention of the pre emptor that the second sale deed was a sham transaction, the only material that was produced was the ration card to show that the first and the second purchasers were members of the same joint family.
On 17th of July 1984, an application for pre emption was filed before the Deputy Collector by one Chandrika Singh against Paras Sah under Section 16 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land Act, 1961 in short the Act claiming to be a raiyat of adjoining lands of the lands in question.
On 12th of October, 1983 Paras Sah executed a sale deed in respect of the lands in question in favour of one Smt.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. One Shri Arvind Kumar Singh, who was the admitted owner of the lands namely, Plot No.
