WRIT PETITION 25 of 2003 on 22 July 2002

1. Smt. Abala Mandalani, wife of Dharni Dhar Mandal, village Palani, PS-Balipur, District Dhanbad

2. Smt. Jhuru Mandalani, wife of late Tarini Mandal, village Telco, Nawadih, Bokaro

3. Smt. Chhepu Mandalani, wife of Amrit Mandal, village Saharjuri, Bhitia, Barwadda, Dhanbad

... ... Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Jharkhand

2. Member, Board of Revenue, Ranchi

3. Additional Collector, Dhanbad

4. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad

5. Smt. Musri Mandalani, wife of Late Ras Mohan Mandal

6. Dharni Dhar Mandal, son of Sadhu Mandal Nos. 5 and 6 are resident of village-Bara Pitchri Koriatand, Kalayanpur, Barwadda, Dhanbad … ... Respondents

-----------------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

For the Petitioners : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate For the Respondents : None

--------------

07/04.11.2015 Aggrieved by order dated 11.07.2003, in Revenue Case No. 25 of 2003, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, Most. Musri Mandalani who was the second wife of Rash Mohan Mandal sold land in

C.S. plot no. 2303 by a registered deed in favour of respondent no. 6. The land in question was recorded in the name of one Bhuban Mandal who died in the year, 1940. Ashu Mandal and Rash Mohan Mandal were his sons. After sale of 7 decimals of land in favour of respondent no. 6 on 10.09.2001, the petitioners filed application under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Lands) Act, 1961 and the said application has been registered as L.C. Case No. 08 of 2001-02. The said application was dismissed on 22.07.2002 and the appeal as well as revision preferred by the petitioners have been dismissed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent no. 6 is neither adjoining raiyat nor a co-sharer and therefore, the application filed by the petitioners who are daughters of Rash Mohan Mandal from his first wife should have been allowed.

4. A perusal of the order passed in L.C. Case No. 8 of 2001-02 would indicate that the trial court noticed that the petitioners did not disclose whether after the death of their father, their mother namely, Rudni Mandalani was alive or not. The petitioners also failed to establish that even after their marriage they remained co-sharer in the properties in question. The appellate court has also recorded a finding that the petitioners did not produce evidence that they were exercising their right over the ancestral properties even after their marriage. The respondent no. 6 is the son of Sadhu Mandal who is co-sharer, is not in dispute. The sale deed was registered after the mandatory service of notice under Section 26(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The revisional authority has recorded a finding that none of the parties is a land holder. Since the disputed land is “Gharbari” and not a “homestead” land, the provisions under Section 16(3) of the Tanuj/- Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Lands) Act, 1961 would not apply in the present case. The revisional authority noticed the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of “Fakir Mohammad. vs. Salahuddin and others”, AIR 1975 Patna 119, to hold that “homestead” land under the Act must be homestead land of a land holder. I find that three Courts have concurrently disbelieved the case set-up by the petitioners. The petitioners failed to asserts and establish that even after their marriage they remained co-sharer or adjoining raiyats.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)