CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.7424 OF 1990 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. … 1) Hazari Sao, 2) Misri Sao, both sons of Late Ganga Sao, village Tetar Hat, PS Halsi, District Munger – Petitioners. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) The Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3) The Addl. Collector, Munger. 4) The D.C.L.R., Jamui. 5) Most. Ram Sakhi Devi, wife of Late Mahadeo Sao, 6) Krishna Nandan Prasad, 7) Suresh Pd. Sah, 8) Ashok Sah, 9) Dasrath Sao, 10) Shankar Sao, 11) Yadunandan Sao, all sons of Late Mahadeo Sao, 12) Meena Devi, 13) Champa Devi, 14) Aruna Devi, 15) Gauri Devi, all daughters of Late Mahadeo Sao, residents of village Tetarhat, PS Lakhisarai, District Munger. 16) Jaibun Nisa, wife of Alijan Mian, daughter of Late Sadique Mian, village Paghat Dih, PS Jharia, Dist. Dhanbad. 17) Sattar Mian, son of Asgar Mian, PO Jharia, District Dhanbad – Respondents. … For The Petitioners : Mr. Taranath Jha, Advocate. For The State : Mr. Saroj Kumar, A.C. To. A.A.G. VI. … P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S. A. Khan, J. The petitioners are the purchasers and challenge the order, dated 7.9.1990 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar in Case No. 442/1986. Petitioner no.1 purchased a piece of land appertaining to Khata no. 323, plot no.1015 by two sale deeds. Each sale deed indicates that one decimal of land was 2 purchased for a consideration amount of Rs.3000/-. The respondents filed pre-emption application on the ground that they are the boundary raiyats. The pre-emption application was allowed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms which was set aside in appeal which ultimately culminated in the order impugned passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in favour pre-emptors. 2. This matter was remanded several times for determination of the question with respect to nature of the land, considering the fact that the area of the land is very small. The Additional Collector on remand conducted a spot verification and on examination of the khatiyan, sale deeds has come to the conclusion that the lands in question are not used for agriculture purposes. The findings are based on the fact that the Khatiyan describes the land as Khatiyan ‘Belagaan’, ‘Khandhar’, meaning thereby that the land was not utilized for the purpose of agriculture and has ditches on it, or it is at least uneven. The pre-emptor’s land is admittedly on the boundary, is also not utilized for the purpose of agriculture, rather, it is used as a ‘Sehan’ (court-yard) of the pre-emptors. It has also been noted in the order sheet that the local market is situated just next to the land in question, and all the lands situated adjacent to the petitioners’ lands are used for purposes other than agriculture. 3. The Board of Revenue has referred to part of the enquiry report, in order to reject the petitioners’ claim. The Member, Board of Revenue has held that since there was statement of one of the persons examined by the Additional 3 Collector, that there was a house some twenty years back on the lands in question, this fact does not by itself, changes the nature of the land. This aspect of the matter is not very relevant. The fact is that it is a ‘Khandhar’ and has been lying vacant without being used for any purpose whatsoever. The fact that the sale deed indicates that the lands have been purchased for the purpose of construction of a house, therefore, becomes relevant as it would indicate the purpose for which the lands have been purchased. 4. The small area mentioned in the sale deed is another indicator of the fact that such lands cannot usually be utilized for agricultural purpose. I, therefore, find that that the Board of Revenue has only picked up one point of the enquiry report and has not taken into consideration the entire enquiry report, the khatiyan or the sale deed, and the nature of the other surrounding lands for coming to the conclusion that the lands in question are fit for agricultural purpose . Contrary is true. 5. I accordingly find that the reasons given by the Member, Board of Revenue are not tenable and quash the order, dated 7.9.1990. This writ petition is allowed. Patna High Court, August 24, 2010, NAFR / haque. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)