IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5951 of 2008 1.BAIJNATH SINGH @BAIDYANATH 2.Deonath Singh 3.Chandra Shekhar Singh all sons of Bhola Singh resident of Village P.O. and P.S. Sonepur District Saran. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Additional Member Board of Revenue,Bihar,Patna. 3.The Additionala Collector, Saran at Chapra 4.The Subdivisional Officer, Sonepur 5.Deepeshwar Singh son of Agar Singh, resident of Village Sahpur P.S.Sonepur,District Saran. ----------- CWJC No.6328 of 2008 BAIJNATH SINGH @ BAIDYANATH SI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS ----------- 2 13.4.2009. In both the writ applications petitioners are the pre- emptors and their prayer is for quashing the order dated 28.3.2006 passed by the Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in Board Revision case no.131 and 132 of 2003 and the order dated 7.5.2003 passed by the Additional Collector, Saran at Chapra in L.C.Appeal no.10 and 11 of 2000 and also the order dated 17.5.2000 passed by the Subdivisional Officer-cum- D.C.L.R. in L.C.Case no. 5 and 6 of 1999-2000. Petitioners have lost their case before all three forums. This is the second time that the matter has traveled up to High Court. Earlier respondent no.5, purchaser had filed C.W.J.C.No.5257 of 1991 and C.W.J.C.No.5258 of 1991 against the order passed by the Additional Member Board of Revenue dated 4.2.1991 whereby two revision applications were disposed of by a common order. The writ applications were allowed and the order passed by the Additional Member Board of Revenue, the Additional Collector and the D.C.L.R. were quashed. The matter was remitted back to the D.C.L.R. for fresh consideration after holding a proper spot enquiry in order to find out the claim of adjacency of the parties relating to the vended plots. After remand, petitioners who are pre- emptors lost their case before the D.C.L.R., Additional Collector and also before the Member Board of Revenue. Petitioners are claiming to 2 be the co-sharers as well as adjacent boundary tenant of the vended plots. One Most.Jilaba Kuer had executed two sale deeds on 2.6.1986 transferring some lands in favour of respondent no.5. Pre- emption application was filed by the petitioners claiming to be co- sharers and boundary tenant. On the first occasion as well on second occasion the claim of pre-emptors being co-sharers and adjoining raiyat was rejected by the D.C.L.R. and the Additional Collector. The finding recorded by the courts below is that since there is partition in the family, the pre-emptors are no more co-sharers of the vendor. Regarding claim of adjacent boundary raiyat, the finding is that the purchaser himself is a boundary tenant as such the claim of adjency of pre-emptor cannot be given priority over the claim of purchaser. Considering these facts I do not find any merit in these two writ applications, specially since the right of pre-emption is a weak right and can be allowed only when the purchaser has no case. In the present matter the purchaser himself is boundary tenant and his right to purchase the land cannot be defeated. Both the writ applications are dismissed. Sss/- (Mridula Mishra, J)