IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.814 of 1992 1. JAI MANGAL RAI , SON OF LATE BANWARI RAI 2(A) MOST BEYASTI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE BABULAL RAI 2(B) BALENDRA RAI 2(C) RAVINDER RAI 2(D) RAMESH RAI 2(E) RAJESHWAR RAI, NOS. 2(B) TO 2(E) MINOR SONS OF BABULAL RAI UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF BEYASTI DEVI MOTHER, 3. PHULDEO RAI 4. KISHORI RAI 5. MOSTT. PUNKALI DEVI, W/O- LATE BANWARI RAI 6. MOSTT. MATIA DEVI, W/O- LATE GENA RAI 7. RAM PRABESH RAI, SON OF LATE GENA RAI ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE PAKARI BASARAT P.O.- BHAGWANPUR, P.S.- SAHEBGANJ, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. 8. SMT. PATIA DEVI DAUGHTER OF GENA RAI AND WIFE OF BIRODHI RAI OF VILLAGE TARWAN, MAJHAULIA, P.S.- PAROO, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR 9. SMT. RAJKALI DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE GENA RAI AND WIFE OF CHHABILA RAI OF VILLAGE BARA-TOLA,, P.S.- KESARIA, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN. ……. Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, MUZAFFARPUR. 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND REFORMS), MUZAFFARPUR, WEST, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR 5. SURAJ RAI 6. PUNKAL RAI BOTH SONS OF JANGI RAI OF VILLAGE PAKRI BASARAT, P.S.- SAHEBGANJ, P.O.- BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. 7. AWADH BIHAR RAI, SON OF LATE BINAI RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PAKARI BASARAT, P.O.- BHAGWANPUR, P.S.- SAHEBGANJ, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR ……… Respondents ----------- 7 18.11.2009 None appears on behalf of the parties. It arises out of proceedings under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Ceiling) Act. The petitioners are the purchasers and challenge the order dated 4.12.1991, passed by the learned Member, Board 2 of Revenue, in Revision Case no. 648 of 1990( Jai Mangal Rai & Ors versus Suraj Rai & Ors). 2. We have perused the materials on record. It appears that the petitioners had purchased the land in question. Respondent nos. 5 and 6 filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Act claiming preemption with respect to the land in question on the ground that they are adjoining raiyat, and that the purchasers are not adjoining raiyats nor co-sharers. Learned D.C.L.R. upheld the claim of preemption. The purchaser moved the learned appellant court which was dismissed leading to the revision application which has also been dismissed leading to the present writ petition. 3. It appears to us that the three authorities have consistently found that the land in question is agricultural in nature and, therefore, an application under Section 16(3) of the Act with respect to the same is maintainable. It has further been found that the pre-emptor is an adjoining raiyat, whereas the petitioners (the purchasers) are neither adjoining raiyats nor co- sharers. 4. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj (S.K. Katriar, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )