IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1023 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15887 of 2005 ====================================================== 1. Shri Mahendra Sah, son of late Dhanpati Sah 2. Smt. Devi Sanju Gupta, wife of Sri Mahendra Sah. 3. Smt. Renu Devi, wife of Sri Sogendra Sah. All are residents of Village Bhatwara, P.S. Korha, Dist. Katihar. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Old Secretariat Building, Patna. 3. The Collector, Katihar, Collectorate Katihar. 4. Sunil Kumar Sah, Son of Sri Parmeshwar Prasad Sah. 5. Dilip Kumar Sah, son of Sri Parmeshwar Prasad Sah. Both 4 to 5 resident of Village Bhatwara, P.S. Korha, Dist. Katihar. 6. Md. Jalil, s/o Etwari Mia. 7. Md. Abid Hussain, s/o Etwari Mia. Both 6 to 7 residing at Village Kheria, P.S. Korha, Dist. Katihar. 8. Sri Ashok Sah, son of Sri Jagdish Sah, resident of Village Tetri, P.S. Naugachchia, Dist. Bhagalpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Praween Kumar Jaipuriar, Advocate with Mr. Anshuman Jaipuriar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pawan Kr. Mishra, G.P.22 with Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha, A.C. to G.P.-22 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Patna High Court LPA No.1023 of 2011 (2) dt.27-07-2011 2 2 27-07-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17th May 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No.15887 of 2005, the respondent nos. 4 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the preemptor’) have preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The Appellants claim a right of preemption on the land admeasuring 3 decimals appertaining to Khata No. 129, Khesra No. 1870 (part) situated at Village Kheria, P.S. Korha, District Katihar, being raiyat of the land contiguous to the land sold to the respondent nos. 4 and 5 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the purchasers’). The right to preemption claimed by the appellants was rejected by the authority below. However, the said order was set aside in appeal before the District Collector. The challenge to the said order in revision before the Board of Revenue failed. Feeling aggrieved the purchasers filed above C.W.J.C. No. 15887 of 2005. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. The learned single Judge observed: “ the purchasers are landless persons. A very small tract of land (less than a katha) was purchased by them for their residential purposes which cannot be said to be the homestead land of a raiyat capable of being used in any manner for agriculture purposes. The topography of the lands indicates that it is close to a bazaar and adjacent to a public road. The purpose for which Section 16 (3) of the Act has been engrafted is not going to sub- serve by allowing the claim of preemption raised by the respondent nos. 4 to 6.” Feeling aggrieved, the preemptors have preferred the present appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. P.K. Jaipuriyar has appeared for the appellants. He has strenuously urged that however weak it Patna High Court LPA No.1023 of 2011 (2) dt.27-07-2011 3 may be, the right to preemption is the statutory right conferred upon the appellants and on conditions satisfied, the claim of preemption made by the appellants should be granted. In support thereof he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of Chandrika Singh Vs. Arvind Kumar Singh [2006 (3)PLJR 195] and of Suresh Prasad Singh Vs. Dulhin Phulkumari Devi & Ors. [(2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 441] Neither of the above judgments shall apply to the facts of the present case. Though, Mr. Jaipuriyar has disputed the finding that the purchasers are landless persons, he has not been able to satisfy us that the purchasers are not landless persons. He admits that there is no evidence to support his contention. In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Nathuni Singh Yadav & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. [1997(1)PLJR 848] , the purchasers being landless persons the right to preemption claimed by the appellants is rightly rejected by the learned single Judge. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine. M.Rahman/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)