IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.289 of 2009 Chandradhar Singh S/o late Hari Narain Singh, R/o Village Gosara, P.S. Ramgarh, Distt. Kaimur (Bhabhua)...................Respondent-Petitioner Versus 1. The state of Bihar. 2. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Mohania, Kaimur.....Opposite Party 1st set. 4. Uday Narayan Singh S/o Late Kapildeo Singh (Rai) R/o Village Gosara, P.S. Ramgarh, Distt. Kaimur (Bhabhua)...Pre-emptor/Petitioner/Opposite Party 2nd Set. With C. REV. No.290 of 2009 Chandradhar Singh S/o late Hari Narain Singh, R/o Village Gosara, P.S. Ramgarh, Distt. Kaimur (Bhabhua)..................Respondent-Petitioner Versus 1. The state of Bihar. 2. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Mohania, Kaimur.....Opposite Party 1st set. 4. Uday Narayan Singh 5. Awadh Narain Singh 6. Prabhu Narain Singh Sons of late Kapildeo Singh (Rai) 7. Reeka Devi D/o late Kapildeo Singh (Rai) 8. Mostt. Prahaladi Devil W/o late Kapildeo Singh (Rai)All R/o Village Gorasara, P.S. Ramgarh, Distt. Kaimur Bhabhua)..Substituted Pre-emptors / Petitioners / Opposite Party 2nd Set. --------- 4 19.08.2010 I. A. No.7041 of 2009 I. A. No. 7046 of 2009 These two interlocutory applications have been filed for condonation of delay in filing these two review petitions. For the reasons stated in these - 2 - interlocutory applications, the same are allowed and delay in filing these two review applications stand condoned. These two review applications have been preferred by the purchaser (respondent no.4 in the writ petitions) for review of the common order dated 20th March, 2008, passed by this Court in CWJC No. 1728 of 2000 and CWJC No. 3500 of 2006, and for re-hearing of the writ petitions. The contention of Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the review petitioner, is that due to some reasons, learned counsel for the review petitioner could not appear at the time of hearing of the writ petitions and, therefore, it could not be pointed out that the original writ petitioner had filed the pre-emption application before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bhabhua, for the first time on 08.09.1993, which was more than two years after registration of two sale deeds in favour of the review petitioner, and hence, the same was hopelessly time barred. Mr. Dwivedi referred to the said order dated 08.09.1993 of the L.R.D.C., Bhabhua, to show that he took cognizance of the said pre-emption application of the original writ - 3 - petitioner for the first time on that date. He further contended that due to absence of the learned counsel for the review petitioner, it could also not be pointed out that the review petitioner-purchaser had purchased an adjoining plot of land by a sale deed dated 03.11.1990 in the names of his sons. Therefore, he himself had become adjoining raiyat of the vended plots. This Court finds that while making the first submission, learned counsel for the review petitioner has overlooked the documents available on the records of CWJC No. 1728 of 2000 annexed as Annexure-4 series and documents placed with the supplementary affidavit of the petitioners as Annexure-5 series which amply establish that the original writ petitioner had filed the pre- emption application in the court of the L.R.D.C., Bhabhua, on 07.12.1991 i.e. within the prescribed time limit for filing a pre-emption application as per law. The said order dated 08.09.1993 of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Bhabhua, by which cognizance was taken of the pre-emption application, also notices that the application was filed within time. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the first - 4 - submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioner. So far as second point raised by Mr. Dwivedi is concerned, apparently the alleged sale deed dated 03.11.1990 was registered in favour of the sons of the original purchaser who were majors, as evident from Annexure-R4/A with the supplementary counter affidavit filed in CWJC No. 1728 of 2000. Hence preemption being a personal right, this plea of the original purchaser is also not fit to be accepted. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the review petitions and the same are dismissed. B.T (S. K. Katriar, J.) (J. N. Singh, J.)