IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.197 of 2002 RAM PRAVESH NONIA, son of Late Raghunandan Nonia, resident of Village- Asawn, P.S.- Darauli, District-Siwan. ...(Pre-emptor-Respondent)- Petitioner. Versus 1. Vishwanath Choudhary. 2. Swaminath Choudhary. 3. Ram Piari Choudhary. 4. Persu Ram Choudhary. All sons of Triveni Choudhary and resident of Village- Fazilpur, P.S.- Darauli, District-Siwan. -----(Vendees-Petitioners)-Opposite Parties-Ist Set. 5. The State of Bihar. 6. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar Old Secretariat Building, P.S. Secretariat, District- Patna. 7. The Additional Collector, Siwan, P.S. and District-Siwan. 8. The S.D.O., Siwan, P.S. and District-Siwan. ---(Respondent)- Opposite Parties 2nd Set. 9. Most. Raburi, wife of Shrinath Nonia(deceased), resident of Village- Asawn, P.S.- Darauli, District-Siwan. 10. Binda Devi, wife of Chhote Chouhan. 11. Indu Devi, wife of Bade Chouhan. Both daughters of Shrinath Nonia and resident of Village-Bhore, P.S. Bhore, District- Gopalganj. ---(Respndents)-Opposite Parties 3rd Set. ----------- 6. 11.08.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed for review of order dated 30.10.1996 passed by a Bench of this Court by which two writ petitions bearing C.W.J.C. No. 3284 of 1985 and C.W.J.C. No. 3293 of 1985 were allowed and the order of the authorities contained in Annexures- 2, 3 and 4 of the said writ petitions were set aside. 3. This Court after considering the entire matters in detail and after relying upon a decision of the court in case of Ram Pravesh Singh Vs. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, reported in 1995(1) P.L.J.R. 764, held that “in view of the binding precedents on the point involved, it was held that the petitioners being boundary - 2 - raiyats of three out of four plots in C.W.J.C. No. 3284 of 1985 and one out of four plots in C.W.J.C.No. 3293 of 1985, are entitled to resist the claim of pre-emption by respondent no.5. It was also held that the writ petitioners being entitled to resist claim of pre-emption with respect to the plots adjacent to which they hold land, the claim of pre-emption has to be rejected as a whole, for there can not be partial pre-emption.” 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record and also does not find any fresh materials which were not available with the petitioner on the earlier occasion, nor this Court finds any other reasons to take a different view. Accordingly, this civil review petition is dismissed. U.K. (S.N.Hussain,J)