IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15268 of 2007 BULAKI YADAV, son of late Khiru Yadav, resident of Village- Kairakado, P.S.- Khaira, District- Jamui. ..... Petitioner. Versus 1.The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner, Munger. 3. The Collector, Jamui. 4.The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Jamui. 5. The Subdivisional Officer, Jamui. 6.Bhunilal Ravidas, son of Bideshi Rabidas, resident of village- Khairakado, P.S.- Khair, Distt- Jamui. 7. Munilal Ravidas, son of Late Degan Rabidas, resident of village- Kairakodo, P.S. Khaira, District- Jamui. ..... Respondents. ----------- 02- 4.3.2009 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. Rajnish Kant, learned assistant counsel to Mr. Ajay, Standing Counsel No.3 (Ceiling). This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.9.2007 (Annexure-6), passed by respondent no.3, in Pre-emption Appeal Case no.10 of 2003 (Muni Lal Ravidas Vs. Bulaki Yadav), whereby the appeal preferred by respondent no.7 herein has been allowed, the order of the learned first authority has been set aside, and the petitioner’s pre-emption application has been rejected. It arises out of proceedings under Section-16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 2 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). We have not felt the necessity of issuing notices to respondent nos.6 and 7 in view of the nature of the order that we propose to pass. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned Government Counsel. Respondent no.6 alienated the following lands in favour of respondent no.7 by a registered deed of absolute sale dated 20.5.2003: Mauza- Kharaich, Tola- Lalpur, P.S.- Khaira. Khata no. Plot no. Area Boundary A.D. 433 3324 0.71/2 N. Johal Yadav S. Jehal Yadav. E. Parti W. Niz and Jhal Yadav. 3324 0.15 N. Parti S. Jahal Yadav E. Parti W.Bishun Rabidas. 0.221/2 decimals 3. By a registered deed of gift dated 3.6.2003, respondent no.7 gifted the aforesaid lands in favour of his niece. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under section- 16(3) of the Act on 21.7.2003, claiming right of pre-emption against respondent no.7. The pre- emption application was allowed on the ground 3 that the petitioner herein (the pre-emptor) is adjoining raiyat. He had also noted the submission advanced on behalf of respondent no.7 that he had, prior to submission of his pre- emption application, already alienated the land by a registered deed of gift in favour of his niece and, therefore, the same was not maintainable against him in a situation where his niece has not been impleaded as party- respondent. The following portion of the order of the learned first authority is relevant: fon~oku vf/koDrk us bu ckrksa ij cy nsrs gq, cryk;k fd izklafxd Hkwfe ij foi{kh dk u rks LokfeRo gS vkSj u gh mDr Hkw[kaM ls dksbZ #>ku ugha gS D;ksafd dksVZ esa eqdnek nk;j djus ds iwoZ gh [ksljk ua0 3324 ds varxZr 022,1/2 fM0 iz’uxr vjkth dk varj.k fd;k tk pqdk Fkk@ 4. Aggrieved by this order, respondent no.7 preferred appeal which has been allowed by the impugned order on the ground that the donee under the deed of gift was a necessary party and the matter cannot proceed in her absence. 5. It appears to me that the pre-emptor became aware of the second transfer before the matter was disposed of by the learned first authority, notwithstanding which he declined to implead the donee as a party-respondent. Respondent no.4 was obviously in error in 4 allowing the pre-emption application in a situation where the title had already been passed on to the donee to the full knowledge of the pre-emptor. The learned Government Counsel has rightly brought to my notice the judgment in Sushil Kumar Choudhary and another Vs. State of Bihar and others (1997(1) P.L.J.R. 857). The facts obtaining in the reported judgments and in the instant case are identical. The second transfer by a registered deed of gift had taken place before the pre-emption application was filed and the pre-emptor had become aware of the same before the learned first authority had disposed of the matter. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is fit to be sustained. 6. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/