IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11324 of 2005 1. Ashok kumar Thakur S/o late Kamda Nand Thakur, R/o vill. Bhachchi, P.S. Madhubani, Dist. Madhubani ---Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Land Reforms Department. 2. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Madhubani. 3. The Additional Collector, Madhubani 4. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Old Secretariat, Patna 5. Sri Laxmi Thakur. 6. Sri Basdeo Thakur 7. Sri Satya Narayan Thakur (Respondent nos. 5 to 7 are sons of Late Ajodhi Thakur, R/o vill Bhachchi, P.S. Madhubani, Dist. Madhubani. 8. Smt. Lalita Thakurain W/o Sri Sharda Nand Thakur, R/o vill. Bhachchi, P.S. Madhubani, Dist. Madhubani. For the petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Advocate. For respondent nos. 5 to 7 : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Kamal Kumar (A.C. To S.C.11) ----------- 03 25.04.2011 Petitioner is pre-emptor. He is aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2004(Annexure-3) passed by respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue in Revision case no. 42 of 20004 whereby the application preferred by the petitioner was considered and rejected. Background facts leading to the present application in a nutshell are as follows:- On 25.08.1990 respondent no.8 executed a sale deed in respect of 02 kathas, 05 durs and 13 ½ kanawas of land in favour of respondent nos. 5 to 7 appertaining to plot nos. 2104, 2106, and 2107 of khata no. 322. The aforesaid sale deed was registered on 16.03.1996. Again on 03.11.1990, aforesaid vendor sold 02 kathas, 02 dhurs, 03 kanwas of land appertaining to plot nos. 2102, 2103, 2104, 2105, 2106, 2107 and 2108 of khata no. 322 in 2 favour of the vendees (respondent nos. 5 to 7). Two ceiling proceedings were levied by the writ petitioner giving rise to L.C. case nos. 01 and 02 of 1996-1997. By a proceeding dated 24.12.2002 (Annexure-1) the claim of pre-emption raised on behalf of the writ petitioner was/were allowed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order(s), two appeals being L.C. case no. 43 and 44 of 2002-03 was/were preferred by the respondent nos. 5 to 7. Both parties were heard whereafter respondent Additional Collector by a proceeding dated 18.12.2003 (Annexure-2) allowed the same by a common order. The claim of pre-emption raised on behalf of the writ petitioner was negated. Aggrieved over by the said order one revision application was preferred vide case no. 42 of 2004. Respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue by a resolution dated 27.10.2004 concurred with the findings recorded by the appellate Court and rejected the revision application preferred by the writ petitioner giving rise to the present writ application. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, private respondents and the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order, submits that the appellate Court as well as the revisional Court erred in differing with the findings recorded by the respondent D.C.L.R. that the purchasers were neither co-sharer nor boundary raiyat in respect of the vended plot/land. It is submitted that the claim of pre-emption has been rejected on the ground that the vended plot/land was found grown up with Mango trees. It is 3 submitted that the said position is not reflected from the subject sale deed(s). It is next contended that the claim of the petitioner cannot be said to be barred by limitation. It is submitted that the provisions contained under the Rules particularly Rule 19(3) are not mandatory in nature. It is next contended that admittedly the vendor of the subject sale deed belonged to the family of the pre- emptor. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, supported the appellate order as well as the revisional order. It is submitted that the pre-emptor is not reflected as boundary raiyat in respect of the vended plot/land in the two sale deeds which is subject matter of the two ceiling proceedings. On the contrary, the purchasers have been reflected as boundary /adjoining raiyats in respect of part of the vended plots. It is next contended that admittedly by reasons of two sale deeds they purchased part(s) of the vended plots. Both the sales had taken effect prior to institution of the proceeding under Section 16(3) of the Land Ceiling Act. Thus, by reasons of these two sale deeds the purchasers themselves became adjoining raiyat(s) of the vended plots of these two sales. Learned appellate Court has considered those aspects of the matter and relying on decision of this Court negated the claim of pre-emption which has been approved by the revisional Court and as such this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not disturb the aforesaid findings based on appraisal of documents placed on behalf of the parties. 4 It appears from perusal of the appellate order (Annexure-2) that the grand father of the purchaser ( respondent nos. 5 to 7) had purchased part of the vended land/plot(s) measuring a total area of 02 katha 18 dhurs and 12 kanwas by a registered sale deed executed in his favour on 03.09.1968. The vended plots therein appertained to khesra no. 2103, 2104, 2105, 2106, 2107 and 2108 of khata no. 322. Based on aforesaid sale the purchasers were reflected as boundary raiyat(s) of the vended plots in subject sale deed. Respondent appellate Court further considered that by reason of two sale deeds executed on 25.08.1990 and 03.11.1990 and registered on 16.03.1996 and 14.06.1996 respectively the purchasers respondent nos. 5 to 7 themselves became adjoining raiyat of the vended plot under the two sales. Admittedly this all happened prior to institution of proceeding under Section 16(3) of the Act. Relying on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Ram Roop Yadav vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. since reported in 1987 PLJR 455 as also 1998(3) PLJR 796 (Shashi Prabha Devi & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and ors.) it has been held that the apart from the fact that they are reflected as adjoining raiyats of the vended plots in the subject sale deeds they also became adjoining raiyat of the plots vended by reason of two sale deeds. This was considered more than adequate to defeat the claim of pre-emption raised on behalf of the petitioner. Respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue after having heard the parties came to the same conclusion in the impugned resolution. 5 In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the two Courts below, this Court is of the considered view that no case of interference with the revisional order is made out by invocation of its extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently the application fails. It is accordingly, dismissed. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)