IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4077 of 2006 Nandlal Bin son of late Khublal Bin, R/o vill-Bangara Khurd, Pargana-Manjhi, P.S. Revilganj, Dist-Saran (Chapra) ----Petitioner . Versus 1. The State of Bihar . 2. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna 3. The Additional Collector, Saran at Chapra. 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Chapra Dist. Saran. 5. Parmeshwar Prasad Sah son of late Janki Sah 6. Arjun Bin 7. Bhim Bin 8. Nukul Bin (sons of late Indradeo Bin) Sl. no. 5 to 8 are residents of vill- Bangara Khurd, Pargana-Manjhi, P.S. Revilganj, Dist-Saran. 9. Matisar Devi D/o late Indradeo Bin and wife of Sudarshan Bin, R/o of vill. Derni, P.S. Derni, Dist. Saran. ---Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. B.N.Mishra, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, AC to S.C.XI. ----------- 03 19.05.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is preemptor. He is aggrieved by the resolution dated 30.01.2006 (Annexure-1) passed by respondent Board of Revenue in case no. 171 of 2003 whereby revision application preferred by the petitioner was rejected. One katha five dhurs of land was vended in favour of purchaser/respondent no.5 by the ancestor of respondent nos. 6 to 9. Father of the petitioner was shown on the Western boundary of the vended plot. On the Northern boundary plot no. 642 has been reflected which stood recorded in the name of Indradeo (husband of the vendor) and Kabutari Devi (wife of Khublal). The claim lodged by the petitioner before the respondent D.C.L.R. vide L.C. case no. 16 of 2003 was allowed by order dated 23.1.2003 (Annexure-3). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent no.5 2 preferred appeal vide L.C. appeal no. 05 of 2003. The appellate Court/authority by proceeding dated 25.7.2003 (Annexure-2) rejected the claim of preemption on the ground that purchaser himself was found adjoining raiyat of the vended land/plot. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the writ petitioner preferred revision vide case no. 171 of 2003. After hearing both sides the revisional Court by resolution dated 30.01.2006 (Annexure-1) rejected the claim of preemption and dismissed the revision application which has been impugned in the present writ case. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, made diverse submissions in support of the application. It is submitted that the preemptor/writ petitioner is not only the adjoining raiyat but also co -sharer of the vended plot and as such he has a superior claim. The revisional Court, on a consideration of the materials on record, concurred with the findings recorded by the appellate Court/authority in the following manner:- “From the record I find that even before the D.C.L.R. the purchaser had filed copy of sale deed dated 7.2.1967 showing purchase of land of plot no. 642 in the northern boundary of which the names of Indradeo ( husband of the vendor and Kabutari Devi- wife of Khub Lal) was mentioned. From the copy of map on the record I find that the aforementioned plot no. 642 is adjacent South of the disputed land. Thus apparently the purchaser-opposite party no.5 holds land in the Southern boundary of the disputed land. The stand of the petitioner that Khub Lal ( his so called father) got land adjacent west in the same plot as his share on partition, does not change the position. Since the purchaser himself holds lands in the 3 boundary of the disputed land from long before. There is no question of pre-emption. The D.C.L.R. has committed error in not taking into consideration this aspect of the matter. The appellate authority took into consideration this aspect and rightly held that the claim of pre-emption was not maintainable.” Law is well-settled. If the purchaser himself is/are able to demonstrate that he is not only the purchaser but also adjoining raiyat of the vended plot then the preferential claim of the preemption under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 would fail. This Court is not satisfied that a case for interference with the findings of the revisional Court under Annexure-1 is made out by invocation of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The application lacks merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)