IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9482 of 2007 Anil Kumar alias Anil Kr. Singh, son of Sri Kumar Birendra Bhadur Singh resident of Village Singhaul P.S. Belaganj, Dist.Gaya --------- Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. Addl. Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3. Colelctor, Gaya 4. Addl. Collector, Gaya 5. Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Gaya --------- Respondent Ist Set. 6. Sri Siya Ram Sharma 7. Sri Saroj Sharma, both sons of Sri Girija Singh, resident of Village Fetehpur P.S. Belaganj, Dist. Gaya ----------- Respondent 2nd Set 8. Baby Nibha )Minor daughter of petitioner) under the guardianship of Sri Nageshwar Prasad, Advocate son of late Ram Lagan Singh, residernt of Mohalla Tilha Town P.S. Civil Lines, District- Gaya ---- Respondent 3rd Set. ----------- 3. 11.2.2009 Heard Mr. Kamlendra Prasad Singh for the petitioner, and Learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No.2(Ceiling). This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.12.2005 (Annexure- 1/C), passed by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in Revision Case No. 285 of 2002 (Anil Kumar Vrs. Siya Ram Sharma), in purported exercise of powers under section 32 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby the revision application preferred by the present petitioner has been rejected. It arises out of proceedings under section 16(3) of the Act. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner filed an application under section 16(3) of the Act, claiming pre-emption with respect to plot no. 1313, covering area of 4½ decimals, appertaining to Khata no. 94. The same was rejected by order dated 2 18.4.2000 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Gaya, in Ceiling Case No. 6199 of 2000 (Anil Kumar Vrs. Siyaram Sharma & Ors.), on the ground that the lands in question are not agricultural in nature, but is homestead on which the house of one Sheo Kumar stands. Indeed the learned first authority has made spot inspection on the request of the parties and found the house of Sheo Kumar, and physical features of the area around the plot in question also give the impression of cluster of houses. The three authorities have concurrently found that it is not agricultural land, and the claim of the pre-emptor under section 16(3) of the Act is fit to be rejected. The impugned order can not, therefore, be faulted. The writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )