IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14614 of 2005 1. SACHCHIDANAND SINGH son of late Lakhan Singh, 2. Smt. Raj Dulari Devi wife of Sachchidanand Singh, both residents of village Mazlishpur, Police Station Bidupur, District Vaishali at Hajipur… .. Petitioners Versus 1. THE ADDL.MEMBER,BOARD OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA, 2. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector,Vaishali at Hajipur, 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Vaishali at Hajipur, 4. Savalakh Singh, 5. Lala Singh both sons of late Jamun Singh, residents of village Majlishpur, Police Station Bidupur, District Vaishali at Hajipur, Respondents Ist Set 6. Kailash Singh son of late Jamun Singh, resident of village Majlishpur, Police Station Bidupur, District Vaishali at Hajipur… Respondent IInd Set …. .. Respondents ----------- 6 27.08.2009 None appears on behalf of the petitioners. Perused the office note. This writ application stood rejected against respondent nos. 4 to 6 and M.J.C. No. 3139 of 2007 filed for restoration of this writ application as against the aforesaid respondents had also been dismissed for default on 21.05.2008. Another application bearing M.J.C. No. 1978 of 2008 filed for restoration of the aforesaid application, i.e., M.J.C. No. 3139 of 2007, had also been dismissed by a Bench of this Court on 29.07.2009. This writ application has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the Additional 2 Member, Board of Revenue, dated 30.09.2005, as contained in annexure 3, whereby the revision filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5 was allowed and they were found entitled for the claim of pre-emption with regard to transaction concerned and the orders passed by the authority at first instance, i.e., the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Vaishali at Hajipur, as well as the Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur dated 17.09.2002 were set aside. Office has submitted this case for consideration as to whether this writ application is competent to proceed in the absence of respondent nos. 4 to 6 or the same has become incompetent to proceed with. In my opinion, since this application has been filed challenging the order passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, dated 30.09.2005(annexure 3), whereby the right of pre-emption of respondent nos. 4 to 6 has been allowed, this writ application cannot proceed in their absence and has become incompetent. Accordingly, this application is dismissed as having become incompetent to proceed with. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)