IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12162 of 2007 Nandu Sah Son of Late Nakchhed Sah resident of village Kanana P.O. Kaurihar P.S. Raxaul Dist. East Champaran ….. Petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Collector, Motihari, East Champaran 3.The Land Reforms Deputy Collector cum Sub-divisional Officer, Raxaul East Champaran 4. Smt Umarawati Devi wife of Munilal Sah 5. Sri Munilal Sah son of Ram Swarup Sah 6. Shambhu Prasad son of Late Sheo Nath Sah 7. Om Prakash Prasad son of Late Sheo Nath Sah 8. Sushil Prasad son of Late Sheo Nath Sah All are resident of village Kanana P.O. Kaurihar P.S.Raxaul Dist. East Champaran ----------- 2 19.02.2009 Heard Mr Sunil Kumar no.3 for the petitioner, and Assistant counsel to learned Standing Counsel no.2 (Ceiling). This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.4.2007 passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector cum Subdivsisonal Officer, Raxaul, East Champaran ( Respondent no.3), whereby he has rejected the petitioner’s application under section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land )Act,1961. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner claims pre-emption with respect to the following land: xzke [kkrk ua0 [ksljk ua0 jdok pkSgn~nh duuk 106 1486 0-!-2 m0& uUnqlkg n0& jkelqUnj lkg iq0& jkLrk i0& uUnq lkg - 2 - Respondents no. 4 and 5 had purchased the same by means of a registered of absolute sale on 29.12.2006. The petitioner deposited consideration money of Rs 20,000/- plus the statutory amount on 9.1.2007. Respondents no.4 and 5 alienated the land in question in favour of one Harihar Sah by a registered deed of absolute sale on 11.1.2007. On a consideration of the material on record, respondent no.3 has rejected the petitioner’ application. He has stated in the impugned order that though the petitioner is shown to be adjoining raiyat in the registered sale deed, but he has not filed any document nor led any evidence in support of his case. It is further stated therein that respondent no.2 alienated the land in question in favour of Harihar Sah for consideration of a sum of Rs 80,000/-. It is further stated therein that the petitioner did not deposit consideration money of Rs 20,000/- plus 10 per cent thereof. It is further stated that the petitioner has not deposited Rs 80,000/- plus 10 per cent thereof. The petitioner’s application has, therefore, been rejected for valid reasons. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It is accordingly dismissed. shahid (S.K.Katriar, J)