IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10233 of 2000 SAMAR DAS son of Late Guru Charan Das, resident of village- Murbadih, at present Duleya, P.S.- Chakai, District- Jamui Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COLLECTOR, JAMUI 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, JAMUI 5. SUKHU MARANDI SON OF DHIBA MARANDI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DOME CHHORATH, P.S.- CHAKAI, DISTRICT- JAMUI 6. NAYKA MURMI SON OF SINGHREY MURMU 7. CHHOTKI DEVI WFIE OF MANGRU MURMU 8. MANGRU MURMU ( DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT ON 01.11.2004) 9. DOMU MURMU SON OF CHETAN MURMU 10. FEGU MURMU SON OF NUNA MURMU 11. NUNU RAM MURMU 12. BADAY MURMU BOTH SONS OF SOMAR MURMU ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DOMA CHHORATH, P.S. CHAKAI, DISTRICT- JAMUI ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma For the respondents : Mr. Narendra Pd. Singh Mr. Arbind Kumar **** 7 19.01.2009 Heard the parties. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.5. The petitioner challenges the order dated 25.10.1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Case No. 89 of 1998. The submission is that the claim of the respondent no.5 for pre-emption must fail since he is not the adjoining Raiyat of all the plots besides the land in question was homestead. Further submission is that the Deputy Commissioner Land Reforms as well as the - 2 - Collector did not consider the issue that the respondent no.5 was not the adjoining Raiyat of all the plots, more over the land in question was homestead land of the petitioner. Consequently the orders passed by the D.C.L.R. as contained in Annexure-5 as also the order passed by the Collector on appeal as contained in Annexure-6 deserve to be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 files counter affidavit and opposes the prayer of the petitioner. It is submitted that the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner is pure concluded questions of fact. The respondent D.C.L.R. as well as the Collector considering the documents brought on record have concluded the finding of fact that the respondent no.5 was the adjoining Raiyat of all the plots of Khata No. 10 which are in dispute besides the claim of the petitioner that the land in question was homestead, was also found not acceptable as the alleged JHOPRI which was said to have been put up by the petitioner on the land in question was only for ulterior purposes and not bonafide. Besides the above, the respondent D.C.L.R. as well as the Collector both found that the petitioner is not a resident of the village in question as well. Considering the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the pleadings, it appears that the matter is - 3 - pure questions of fact which has been concluded on the basis of the relevant documents. In the circumstances, I do not find any error in the orders passed by the respondents as contained in Annexures- 5, 6 & 7. The writ application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Manish ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)