CHANDRIKA SINGH (DEAD) THR. L.RS. versus ARVIND KUMAR SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 341 · Decided: 12-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
CHANDRIKA SINGH (DEAD) THR. L.RS. 
v. 
ARVIND KUMAR SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. AND ORS. 
MAY 12, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Pre-emption: 
Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus 
Land) Act, 1961-ss. 16(2) and (3)-Sale deed-Execution of-Right to file 
pre-emption application-Held : Accrues only when the registration of the 
sale deed is complete-Land Reforms-Registration Act, 1960-s.60. 
The respondent original owner of lands in question executed a sale 
A 
B 
c 
deed on 10th August, 1983 transferring the same in favour of 'P' for 
D 
Rs.1000. On 12th October, 1983, P executed a sale deed in respect of 
lands in question in favour of one 'G' for Rs.4000/-. The first sale deed 
was got registered on 14th June, 1984 and the second sale deed was 
registered on 31.8.1984. On 17th July, 1984, Appellant claiming to be 
a raiyat of adjoining lands filed application against 'P' for pre-emption 
E 
before Deputy Collector u/s.16(3) of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of 
Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. 
Deputy Collector allowed the pre-emption application holding that 
the sale deed to 'G' was a sham transaction and it was only executed to 
defeat pre-emption under the Act. Feeling aggrieved, 'P' filed an appeal 
before the Collector. He made 'G', respondent for the first time. However, 
he did not appear and his appeal was dismissed in default. 
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Collector, 'P' filed a petition 
u/s.32 before the Board of Revenue which was also rejected. Then 'G', 
second purchaser and relative of 'P', successfully filed Writ application 
before High Court challenging the orders by tribunals below. Division 
Bench of High Court affirmed the order of Single Judge. The 
pre-emptor, feeling aggrieved by orders of High Court, filed present 
F 
G 
appeal. 
H 
341 
A 
342 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. The first sale deed was registered on 14th of June, 1984, 
therefore, it could be pre-empted only within three months from 14th of 
June, 1984. Admittedly, in this case, the application for pre-emption was 
B 
filed on 17th of July, 1984 i.e. well within the limitation period of 3 
months. At the same time, it is also not in dispute that the second sale 
deed, which was executed by 'P' in favour of 'G' for a consideration of 
Rs.4000/- was registered on 31st of August, 1984, that is, after the 
registration of the first sale deed and after the pre-emption application. 
c 
D 
Further, under s.16(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling 
Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 a sale is complete only 
when the document of transfer is registered and unless the registration 
is complete under s.60 of the Registration Act, the transfer of the land 
in question would still be inchoate. S. 16(3) says that a pre-emptor can 
only be permitted to file the pre-emption application within 3 months 
from the date of registration of transfer deed. Therefore, the right to 
file the pre-emption application under s.16(3) of the Act accrues only 
when the re~istration of the document is completed. 1349-F-H, 350-AI 
Radhakisan L. Toshniwal v. Shridhar. 11961 I 1 SCR 248; Ram Saran 
F 
Lallv. MST Domini Kuer, (196212SCR17; Hiralal Agrawalv. Rampadarath 
Singh and Ors., AIR (1969) SC 244, referred to. 
2. The right of re-convevance accrues to the pre-emptor only on the 
date of the completion of the registration of the transfer deed and an 
F 
application for pre-emption under s.16(3) of the Act filed before such 
date would be pre-mature. Therefore, the pre-emptor was entitled to file 
the pre-emption application against 'P', only after the first sale deed was 
registere'1on14th June 1984 and not before that date. It is clear that the 
registration of the sale deed executed in favour of 'G' by 'P' was not 
G 
complete and effective, for want of registration, when the application for 
pre-emption was filed against 'P'. Accordingly, there is no reason to hold 
that the application for pre-emption, filed by appellant could not be 
maintained against 'P', the first transferee. For the reasons aforesaid, it 
would not be necessary to go into the question whether the second sale 
H 
was a sham transaction or not. 1350-D-FI 
... 
CHANDRIKA SINGH v. ARVIND KUfyiAR SINGH [CHATTERJEE, J.] 
343 
3. A sale deed executed by 'P' in favour of 'G' prior to the registration 
of the first sale deed, cannot n
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.