IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2874 of 2011 MOST.NAINA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE BALESHWAR THAKUR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TALKHAPUR, DUMRA, P.S. DUMRA, DISTRICT SITAMARHI, BIHAR …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAND REFORMS IN PATNA, BIHAR 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, SITAMARHI, BIHAR AT P.O. AND P.S. DUMRA DISTRICT SITAMARHI, BIHAR 3. SRI RAM HARIDAI RAI, SON OF LATE RAM CHARAN RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TALKHUPUR DUMRA, P.S. DUMRA DISTRICT SITAMARHI, BIHAR 4. SMT. GEETA SINGH WIFE OF SRI KAMDEO SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TALKHAPUR DUMRA, P.S. DUMRA, DISTRICT SITAMARHI, BIHAR. …. RESPONDENTS For the petitioner :Mr. Virendra Kumar For the State :Mrs. Kalpana AC to SC 19 ----------- 02. 14.02.2011 Heard both sides. The petitioner prays for a direction upon the respondents to hand over peaceful possession of the land to her which was the subject-matter of Pre-emption Case No.06/92-93. Petitioner is the purchaser of land which became the subject- matter of pre-emption proceeding levied by respondent no.3. Brief facts relevant for disposal of the case may be indicated. The land(s) in question was/were acquired by the petitioner from one Geeta Singh (vendor/respondent no.4). Respondent no.3 instituted a proceeding under section 16(3) of the Land Ceiling Act(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) seeking his right of pre-emption. Respondent-D.C.L.R. on a 2 consideration of the matter, allowed the same by order dated 02.05.1994 (Annexure-2). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed appeal being Appeal No. 54/94/5/95-96 before respondent-Addl. Collector. The appellate authority by order dated 19.07.1995 (Annexure-3), allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and the order of the DCLR dated 02.05.1994 was quashed and set aside. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed on appeal, the pre-emptor (respondent no.3) preferred revision before the Board of Revenue, vide Case No. 157 of 1995. The Board of Revenue by a Resolution dated 30.12.1996 (Annexure-4), remitted the matter back to the appellate authority for disposal as per the direction contained therein. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid order before this Court by filing CWJC No.4425 of 1997. By order dated 20.07.1998, a Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition (Annexure-5), whereby the Resolution of the Board of Revenue dated 30.12.1996 (Annexure-4) was quashed and set aside. It appears that another writ petition was filed before this Court by one of the pre- emptors vide CWJC No. 11730 of 1998 for review/recall of order dated 20.07.1998 (Annexure-5) which was considered and rejected by order dated 16.02.2000 (Annexure-6). Learned counsel has not been able to demonstrate with reference to any order of the authority under the Act that he was made to re- convey the land(s) in favour of the pre-emptor during the pendency of the proceeding. There is no assertion in the writ petition also that the petitioner made over the land to the pre- 3 emptor by re-conveying the same in terms of any order passed by the authority. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, this court is of the view that the grievance of the petitioner made in the pre-emption proceeding cannot be entertained by this Court by invocation of writ jurisdiction. If the petitioner has been dispossessed by the pre-emptor, he may take recourse to other remedy available in law. With this observation, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )