Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SHEOJI MAHTO AND ORS. versus THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND ORS.

Decided
10 December 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 808 · 1996 INSC 1461
Also cited as
  • (1997) 1 SCC 733 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Patna High Court, made on December 10, 1984 in CWJC No.5491184 dismissing the writ petition in limine.

p. 808, margin F

The admitted facts are that Sukhdeo Rai is the predecessorin-interest of the respondents. Gulabo Devi and others had purchased one Katha of land towards the east of the land of the appellants from Sukhdeo Rai by a sale deed executed on December 31, 1979 which was got registered on February 8, 1980. The appellants had filed an application for pre-emption of the land on the ground that be, being the adjoining raiyat, by operation of Section 16(3) of the Bihar Lands Ceiling Act, was entitled to pre-emption of the said land from the contesting respondent. The Tribunal held in favour of the appellant and ultimately the Collector in the proceedings dated August 11, 1984 held against the appellants. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition in limine, as stated earlier. The question, therefore, is: whether the view of the Collector is correct in law? Section 16(3)(i) reads as under:

pp. 808–809, margin G

"16(3)(i) When any transfer of land is made after the commencement of this Act to any person other than a co-sharer or a raiyat of adjoining land, any co-sharer of the transferor or any raiyat holding land adjoining the land transferred, shall be entitled, within three months of the date of Registration of the document of 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 in the said deed:

p. 809, margin B

Provided that no such application shall be entertained by the Collector unless the purchase money together with a sum equal to ten per cent thereof is deposited in the prescribed maJIIler within the said period. (ii) On such deposit being made the cO'sharer or the raiyat shall be entitled to be put in possession of the land irrespective of the fact that the application under clause (i) is pending for decision:

p. 809, margin C

Provided that· where the application is rejected, the co-sharer or the raiyat, as the case may be, shall lie enacied from the land and possession thereof shall be restored to the trans(eree and the transferee shall be entitled to be paid a sum equal to ten per cent

p. 809, margin E

of the purchase money out of the deposit made under clause (i)."

p. 809, margin F

A reading of Section 16(3)(i) clearly indicates that when any transfer of land is made after the commencement of the Act, to any person other than a co-sharer or a raiyat of adjoining land, any co-sharer of the transferor or any raiyat holding land adjoining the land transferred, shall be entitled within three months of the date of registration of the document of 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 said deed. It is not in dispute that Tribunal below held the appellants to be raiyats holding land adjoining to the land sold to the respondents by registered sale deed. An application was also filed within three months from the date of the registration of the document. Under these circumstances, the two conditions having been satisfied by operation of Section 16(3)(i), the appellants are entitled to pre•emption of the sl!id land. The High Court, therefore, was clearly in error in refusing to entertain the writ petition dismissed in limine. The Collector was also wrong in allowing the appeal.

pp. 809–810, margin F

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court as also of the Collector are set aside. No costs. T.N.A Appeal allowed.

p. 810, margin B