Jharkhand High Court Rejects Preemption Claim Over Residential Land in Hazaribagh
Case No: W.P. (C) No. 3970 of 2008
By Sandhya kaika
The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Ashok Ram Rajak and others, affirming that the right of preemption under the Bihar Land Reforms Act cannot be claimed over land situated within a residential area, regardless of its historical classification.
The case originated when the late Matuk Ram Rajak (the original petitioner) filed for preemption under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Areas and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. He sought to override a 2007 sale of 0.312 decimals of land in Village Mahudar, Hazaribagh, from respondents 6–8 to Sangita Devi. Rajak claimed the right to purchase the land himself, asserting he was an “adjoining raiyat” (landholder).
Initial Victory: The D.C.L.R. Hazaribagh initially allowed the preemption in 2007, viewing the land as agricultural.
Appellate Reversal: The Additional Collector later set aside this order after a verification report from the Circle Officer confirmed the land was situated in a residential area, not an agricultural one.
Revisional Dismissal: The Member Board of Revenue upheld the appellate decision, leading the petitioners to move the High Court in 2008.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, relying on Supreme Court precedents (notably Ramji Sharma v. State of Bihar), observed that the primary object of the Act is to put a ceiling on agricultural land. The Court noted: Mere “Bhit” (agricultural) classification in old records is not conclusive if the area has since become urbanized or residential.
The petitioners’ late-stage argument regarding alleged “interpolation” in the Circle Officer’s report was dismissed, as it was never raised during previous appeals. The Court emphasized that preemption is intended to prevent strangers from intruding into family agricultural holdings; however, this does not extend to lands transferred for non-agricultural purposes in developed areas.
Finding no illegality in the lower authorities’ orders, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the petitioners failed to establish a valid right of preemption over the residential property.
