IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6417 of 2006 SURESH NARAYAN YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No.13131 of 2006 SANJAY KUMAR SANJEEV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 4.8.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and the counsel for the private Respondent No. 4. 2. Petitioner Vendee and his son have preferred these two writ applications questioning the order dated 2.3.2006 passed by the Additional Collector, Khagaria as contained in Annexure-3 in both the writ applications, whereunder the learned Additional Collector has set aside the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms dated 28.7.2005, Annexure-2 refusing to implead the subsequent transferee(Sanjay Kumar Sanjeev, petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 13131 of 2006) as a party respondent in the pre-emption case. It is agreed at the Bar by the counsel for the parties that against the impugned order dated 2.3.2006 there is a remedy of revision available before the Board of Revenue, which has not been availed on the ground that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to consider the appeal filed against any Interlocutory Application, which submission is being refuted by the counsel for the private Respondent, as according to him, the order is within the jurisdiction. 3. It seems there may be jurisdictional error committed by the Additional Collector, which can be corrected by the revisional - 2 - authority. In the circumstances, I dispose of both the writ applications with direction to the petitioners to avail the remedy of revision before the Board of Revenue. In the event, revision application is filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order then the learned Board of Revenue should consider the desirability to condone the delay in filing the revision application as petitioners under some erroneous advice has been prosecuting their remedy in this Court. 4. Both the writ applications are, accordingly disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha,J.)