IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15080 of 2006 DEVENDRA MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: M/S. Baidya Nath Thakur & Shankar Kumar Thakur, Advocates. For the State: Mr. K. Sharver, J.C. to S.C. IV (C) ------ 4. 19.08.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is the pre-emptor. His application seeking pre-emption was dismissed under orders dated 2.11.2004 passed in Land Ceiling Case No. 40 of 2003-04, as contained in Annexure-2 by the Collector under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 against which he filed appeal before the Collector of the District which was heard and disposed of under orders dated 25.08.2005 passed in Ceiling Appeal No. 62 of 2004-05, as contained in Annexure-3 and thereunder the appeal was allowed directing the transferor Gulab Devi to convey the lands in-question in favour of the pre-emptor as the pre-emptor petitioner was found to be the co-sharer of the transferor. Against the order dated 25.08.2005, Annexure-3 the transferee filed Board Revision Case No. 233 of 2005 which was considered and allowed under resolution of the Board of Revenue dated 31.5.2006, Annexure-4, whereunder the Board of Revenue set aside the appellate order dated 25.08.2005,Annexure-3 holding that pre-emptor was neither 2 co-sharer nor adjoining raiyat of the different plots which were the subject-matter of the sale-deed in-question. The Board of Revenue recorded a categorical finding on the basis of the contents of a sale-deed dated 09.11.1995 executed by Ram Swarup Mishra in favour of the pre-emptor himself that there was a partition between Ram Swarup Mishra, husband of Gulab Devi and the pre-emptor and with reference to the contents of the said sale-deed the Board of Revenue held that the pre-emptor, petitioner herein, was not a co-sharer of the Vendor. Having held as such the Board of Revenue further examined whether petitioner was the adjoining raiyat of the plots which were the subject-matter of the sale-deed in-question and in that connection having examined the survey map concluded in paragraph 8 of the order that petitioner was not the adjoining raiyat of all the plots conveyed through the sale-deed. In view of the categorical finding of the Board of Revenue that petitioner is neither co-sharer of the Vendor nor is adjoining raiyat of all the plots conveyed through the impugned sale-deed set aside the appellate order and dismissed the pre-emption case. 3. I do not see any illegality in the order of the Board of Revenue dated 31.5.2006, passed in Board Revision Case No. 233 of 2005, Annexure-4 and, accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. 3 P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)