IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.16 of 2009 RAGHUNATH MAHTO Versus NARBADESHWAR SINGH & ORS ----------- 3 16.1.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the court below has not committed any error in holding that the suit in question was barred by the provision of Section 43 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). This is so because from reading of the plaint read with the relief it would transpire that the suit in hand was out and out relating to the right of preemption and the plaintiff-petitioner had sought to assail an order passed by the S.D.O. allowing preemption. The bar introduced by the legislature under Section 43 of the Act is only in respect of such suit. The submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the S.D.O. had no jurisdiction to decide the case of preemption has to be only noted for its being rejected. S.D.O. also happens to be a collector under the Act. That apart any preemption proceeding which was also decided on contest by the petitioner cannot be said to be without jurisdiction merely because it was decided against the petitioner. 2 Moreover, the plea of the petitioner that on the day such an application for preemption was filed, the registration of the document had not been made will not vitiate the ultimate order of registration of sale deed had been made during the pendency of the preemption proceedings. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The dismissal of the suit by the impugned order on the ground of bar under Section 43 of the Act would however not stand in the way of the petitioner in seeking any other appropriate remedy which may be available to the petitioner. With the aforesaid observation, this application being misconceived is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)