IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.515 of 2008 RADHIKA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellant : Mr.Jagnnath Singh, Advocate ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 27th August, 2008 The appeal suffers from delay of nine days and for condonation thereof, an application (I.A.No.3976 of 2008) has been made. Even if we condone the delay, we find no justification in admitting this appeal. 2. The counsel for the appellant submitted before us, as was submitted before the Single Judge, that the Member Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of facts recorded by the two authorities below. 3. The Single Judge considered this aspect with reference to Section 32 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. 4. The Single Judge considered the matter thus: “The submission of the counsel for the petitioner with regard to scope of the revisional power under Section 32 of the Act that the revisional authority is not entitled to set aside a finding of fact and cannot take an altogether different view and must confine itself to the legality or propriety of the orders passed by the Court below is to be noticed by this Court only for its being rejected. Section 32 of the Act gives a wide power to the - 2 - revisional authority and is not circumscribed or hedged by any restriction limiting the exercising jurisdiction only in respect of legality or propriety of the orders passed by the Court below as in the case of provisions of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court has already considered the scope of Section 32 in a large number of cases all of them unequivocally lay down a law that the Board of Revenue in exercise of revisional power under Section 32 is vested with full jurisdiction to correct any illegality or propriety in the order passed by the Court below and it is a final Court of fact. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Faguni Ram Vrs. State of Bihar (2000) (2) PLJR 507, Kamleshwar Prasad Yadav Vrs. State of Bihar reported in 1986 Bihar Revenue Law Journal page 102, Radha Krishna Prasad Sinha Versus State of Bihar 1980 BBCJ page 173 and Mahant Shiv Bacchan Jiri Vrs. State of Bihar 1977 PLJR 487. Thus, on a plain reading of Section 32 of the Act and the aforementioned judgment, of this Court, it has to be held that the Board of Revenue in exercise of its revisional power under Section 32 of the Act is not only empowered to correct error of lack of jurisdiction or failure to exercise jurisdiction or other material irregularities. The Board of revenue is in fact a forum vested with full powers of appellate jurisdiction and can pass any order either on a question of fact or law being the final Court having power to reverse the appellate order passed under Section 30 of the Act.” 5. In our view, the consideration of the matter by the single judge is in accord with the correct legal position, and cannot be said to be flawed in any manner. 6. As to whether the Member Board of Revenue was justified in upsetting the orders of the two authorities below and holding that the appellant could not have claimed pre-emption as she was not adjoining raiyat of plots, the consideration of the matter by the single judge in this regard is thus: “This Court on appreciation of the aforementioned submissions is of the view that the claim of pre-emption of Writ petitioner has been rightly rejected by the Addl. Member Board of Revenue on the ground that she was not adjoining raiyat of all plots. It is true that by virtue of being co-sharer in the adjoining plots of the land in question she had exercised her right of pre-emption but then if the purchaser the - 3 - respondent no.5 herself had already the adjoining raiyat of the two contiguous plots of the land purchased by her, the right of pre-emption as against her could not have been enforced by the writ petitioner in capacity of a co-sharer. In this context the provision under Section 16(3) of the Act itself makes its clear that the co-sharer will have no preferential right to an adjoining raiyat inasmuch as there is no option or alternative, mentioned in the section 16(3) of the Act with regard to the enforcement of right of pre-emption. All that section 16(3) says that when any transfer of land is made to any person other than co-sharer or adjoining raiyat such co- sharer or adjoining raiyat can exercise right of pre-emption by seeking transfer of land in his / her name on the same terms and conditions contained in the sale deed of the purchaser. A question however arises that when the purchaser himself or herself is adjoining raiyat of the land purchased by him or her can a right of pre-emption be claimed by co-sharer or another adjoining raiyat? This aspect of the matter, in my opinion has been correctly considered and decided in the impugned order by the revisional authority that once the purchaser respondent no.5 had herself became adjoining raiyat of the plots in question being plots no. 2002, 2001, 2007 and 2093 by virtue another earlier sale deed dated 2.3.2000 executed in her favour by her sister for plot no.2002 and 2004, the claim for pre-emption of the petitioner could not have been sustained as held by this Court in the case of Ram Prakash Singh Vs. The Addl. Member Borad of Revenue & Ors reported in 1995 (i) PLJR 764.” 7. On this aspect also, we are of the view that the Single Judge has considered the matter in right perspective justifying no interference by us. 8. LPA does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. 9. This disposes of I.A.No.3976 of 2008 as well. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil