IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.143 of 2008 1. SITA RAM SINGH 2. UPENDRA SINGH 3. ASHOK SINGH SONS OF LATE JALDHAR SINGH 4. AWADHESH KUMAR SINGH @ AWADHESH SINGH SON OF RAM PRAGAS SINGH, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MISRANLIYA, P.S. JANDAHA, P.O. ADALPUR, DISTRICT – VAISHALI ……. -------- APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COLLECTOR, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 4. DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, MAHUA, IN THE DISTRICT OF VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR…RESPONDENTS 5. SACHIDANAND SINGH @ RAM SHOBHIT SINGH, SON OF PALDHARI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – MISRANTI, P.S. JANDAHA, P.O. ADALPUR, DISTRICT – VAISHALI 6. SUSHIL CHANDRA VERMA, SON OF JAMUNA PRASAD VERMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – BHAGWAT KATHOWA, P.S. – JANDAHA, IN THE DISTRICT OF VAISHALI ------- RESPONDENTS For the appellants: Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocates For the respondents : None --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 12th November, 2008 Even if we condone the delay in filing the appeal, in our considered view, the letters patent appeal does not deserve to be admitted. 2. The single judge considered the matter thus: 2 “The counsel for the petitioners submits that the revisional Court totally overlooked this fact that during the pendency of the appeal the preemptors repurchased same piece of land from one Murari Prasad, legal heir of Anshu Prasad, the recorded tenant. In case on the basis of the sale deed executed by the Chandrika Prasad, preemptors could have acquired valid title with respect to the land under preemption, there was no need for them to repurchase same land from the legal heirs of recorded tenant. The sale deed by the legal heir of Anshu Prasad was executed in favour of the preemptors much after the institution of the preemption application, as such, on the date of filing of preemption application they were not the adjacent raiyats. This, in itself, was sufficient for dismissing both the revision applications and affirming the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms as well as the Additional Collector as the preemption applications were not maintainable.” 3. We find ourselves in agreement with the consideration of the matter by the single judge. The impugned order does not call for any interference . 4. Letters patent appeal is dismissed in limine. This disposes of the application for condonation of delay (IA. No.958 of 2008) as well. R.M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/-