IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4164 of 2007 Ayodhya Prasad @ Ayodhya Chaudhary, son of Maheshwari Prasad, resident of Village- Deo Tola Sarab Bigha, P.S. and P.O. Deo, District- Aurangabad. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. Member, Board of Revenue, Govt. of Bihar. The State of Bihar through. 2. The Additional Collector, Aurangabad. 3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Aurangabad. 4. Durgawati Devi, wife of Sri Karamlal Chaudhary. 5. Indu Devi, wife of Sri Raj Kumar Chaudhary. 6. Munni Kuar, widow of Late Kedar Chaudhary. All residents of village- Deo Tola Surab Bigha, P.O. and P.S.- Deo, District- Aurangabad. .... Respondents 1st set. 7. Binod Prasad, son of Late Yadunandan Prasad. 8. Rajendra Prasad, son of Late Raghunandan Ram. Both are residents of village- Deo Tola Sirab Bigha, P.O. and P.S. Deo, District- Aurangabad. .....Respondent 2nd set. ----------- 03- 27.1.2009 Heard Mr. Sidheshwari Prasad Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Upadhya, learned assistant counsel to Standing Counsel No.2 (Ceiling). It arises out of proceeding under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, and is directed against the order dated 13.11.2006 2 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, in Revision Case No.289 of 2005 (Ayodhya Prasad @ Ayodhya Choudhary Vs. Durgawati Devi & others), whereby he has rejected the revision application of the petitioner, upheld the appellate order dated 21.9.2005 (Annexure-4), passed by the learned Additional Collector, Aurangabad, in Land Ceiling Appeal Case No.120 of 2004-05 (Durgawati Devi and others Vs. Shri Ayodhya Prasad @ Ayodhya Choudhary and others), and allowed the application under section 16(3) of the Act of respondent no.4 herein. 2. Respondent no.4 had purchased the land in question and the sale-deed was executed on 8.1.2002. The petitioner filed application under section 16(3) Of the Act claiming pre-emption with respect to the same. The same was allowed by order dated 28.5.2004 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Aurangabad, in Land Ceiling Case No.7 of 2002-03 (Shri Ayodhya Prasad alias Ayodhya Choudhary Vs. Smt. Durgawati Devi). The learned L.R.D.C. held that the petitioner is an adjoining raiyat with respect to the vended plot, and the 3 purchaser is not an adjoining raiyat. Respondent no.4 preferred appeal which has been allowed by order dated 21.9.2005 (Annexure-4), has reversed the findings arrived at by the learned L.R.D.C., and has held that respondent no.4 (the purchaser) is an adjoining raiyat and, therefore, the petitioner’s application under section 16(3) of the Act cannot succeed. Aggrieved by the order the present petitioner preferred revision application which has been rejected by the impugned order. The learned member, Board of Revenue, has upheld the findings of facts recorded by the learned appellate authority, and has rejected the petitioner’s application under section 16(3) of the Act. 3. It thus appears to me that the issues are concluded by findings of facts. The learned appellate authority and the learned revisional authority have held as an issue of fact that respondent no.4 (the purchaser) is also an adjoining raiyat. In that view of the matter, the learned revisional authority has rightly reached the conclusion that the pre- emption application of the petitioner has to fail. Law is well settled that if the 4 purchaser is himself an adjoining raiyat or a co-sharer the claim for pre-emption cannot succeed. The impugned order cannot be faulted. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/