IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.785 of 2008 ***** 1. Jaleshar Chaubey son of Thakur Chaubey 2. Pradeep Chaubey @ Pradeep Ku. Chaubey son of Late Bageshwar Chaubey Both residents of village-Khajuria, P.O. & P.S. Barauli, District- Gopalganj. …. (opposite party in the court below)/ petitioner-appellant in the court below/Petitioners-Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Additional Collector, Gopalganj. 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gopalganj. ….. opposite parties 1st set- Respondents 1st set- Respndents 1st set. 5. Ram Chandra Chaubey son of Late Bhagwat Chaubey, resident of village-Khajuria, P.O. & P.S. Barauli, District- Gopalganj. ….. Pre-emptor/Appellant/OP in the court below- opposite party 2nd set-Respondent 2nd set- Respondent 2nd set 6. Raha Ram Tiwary son of Late Kedar Tiwary 7. Rameshwar Tiwary son of Late Gorakh Tiwary 8. Lagan Tiwary son of Late Raghunandan Tiwary Respondent nos. 6 to 8 residents of village-Piparahiyan, P.O. Neour, P.S. Barauli, District-Gopalganj. ….. Vendors/Respondents in the court below/Ops/ opposite party 3rd set- Respondents 3rd set- Respondent 3rd set 9. Rajendra Shukla son of Sri Ramagya Shukla at present resident of C/o M/s Hindustan Gas and Industries Ltd., 22, New Tengra Road, Kolkata-46. …. Mortgagee/Respondent in the court below/ opposite party IVth set/Respondent IVth set- Respondents IVth set. …… …….. Respondents ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Y.V.Giri, Senior Advocate Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate Mr. V.R. Bharti, Advocate ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ - 2 - Dated, the 15th October, 2008. We heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, senior counsel for the appellants and perused the order of the Single Judge impugned in the present appeal. We also perused earlier order of remand dated 17th January, 1995. Upon consideration of the entire material, we find ourselves in agreement with the consideration of the matter by the Single Judge. 2. In paragraph 6 of the impugned order, the Single Judge has observed thus: - “6. The two authorities have categorically found that Bhagwat Choubey, original private Respondent no. 5 along with his brother Dharamdeo Choubey is the boundary raiyat of the vended plots as both of them have their half share in the adjoining plots. In terms of the provisions contained in Sub-Section (3) of Section 16 of the Act, boundary raiyat of the adjoining plots has the option to file pre-emption case impugning the transaction made in the sale deed. Original private Respondent no.5 was the raiyat of the adjoining plots by virtue of being tenant in common with his brother, Dharamdeo Choubey. In the circumstances, original private Respondent no.5 was competent to maintain the pre- emption case even in absence of Dharmdeo Choubey as both the original private Respondent no.5 and Dharmdeo Choubey have their interest in the adjoining plots as there is only separation and no partition between them.” 3. We have no justifiable reason to take a view different from that of Single Judge. 4. Letters patent appeal is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-