IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.604 of 2007 1. Jagarnath Pandey 2. Baijnath Pandey 3. Suryanath Pandey 4. Sidhnath Pandey 5. Sheshnath Pandey, all sons of late Sitaram Pandey, residents of village Barkadhekich, P.S, - Simra, District – Bhojpur ………. Appellants Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Deputy Collector, I/C Land Reforms, Buxar 3. The Collector, Bhojpur 4. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna 5. Bhola Gosai s/o Ram Prasad Gosain, r/o Ramsur Mukhiya, P.S. – Dumraon, Bhojpur 6. Dulhin jotiya Devi w/o Bishwanath Pradha, r/o pursu Ganda, P.S. – Nawa Nagar, District- Bhojpur ……… Respondents Ist Set 7. Sankeshri Devi w/o Ramnath Pandey and d/o late Sitaram Pandey, r/o village Dulahpur, P.S. Niazipur, Bhojpur 8. Phula Keshar Devi w/o Surendra Tiwary and d/o late Sitaram Pandey r/o village + P.S. Nainijor, Bhojpur 9. Dhankeshri Devi w/o Narbadeshwar Rai and d/o late Sitaram Pandey, r/o Piyara Dalhara, P.S. – Rajpur, District – Buxar Proforma Respondents IInd Set, heirs of original writ petitioner ----------- For the appellants: Mr. Pushkar Naraian Shahi, Sr. Advoate For the State: Mr. Ravi Verma, AC to GP – XV For the respondent no.5: Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, Advocate 18 12/4/2010 Though this matter was listed for orders on the question of condonation of delay, wherein notices were issued and thereafter during the pendency of the said application it came to the notice of the appellants 2 that some deaths had occurred and steps were being taken to bring the legal heirs on record, yet we thought it apt to dwell upon the aspect whether carrying on of the said exercise is necessary in the obtaining factual matrix of the case. To elaborate: whether there is any merit in this appeal to advert to the said kind of procedure for adjudicating the matter. Therefore, on the earlier occasion we had requested Mr. P.N.Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, to argue the matter on merits. Be it noted, Mr. Shahi has addressed us on merits. The essential facts which are to be stated for adjudication of this appeal are that the 5th respondent Bhola Gosai purchased three plots from the 6th respondent. The said plots are situate in survey nos.2116, 2117 & 2132. The sale deeds were executed after obtaining permission from the Consolidation Officer by a singular sale deed dated 13.1.1982. Thereafter, the writ petitioner raised a claim of pre- emption on the ground that he was the adjoining raiyat of the transferred land. The said claim of the writ 3 petitioner did not find favour with the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, who is the competent authority under Bihar Land Reforms Act ( for short, ‘the Act’). Being dissatisfied with the same, he preferred an appeal before the Collector, who allowed the claim of the writ petitioner and set aside the order passed by the appellate authority. The respondent no.6, the purchaser, approached the Board of Revenue putting forth the stand that the 5th respondent was not an adjoining raiyat and, therefore, he was not entitled to maintain a claim for pre-emption. It was contended by the writ petitioner before the Board of Revenue that the three plots constitute a singular block and the same was reflectable from the report of the Pleader Commissioner. The Board of Revenue took note of the fact that the report from Pleader Commissioner was neither called for by the original authority nor the appellate authority. The writ petitioner introduced the said report at the revisional stage and accordingly the same was not taken into account by the revisional authority. The Board of 4 Revenue perused the survey map and found that the writ petitioner was not the adjoining raiyat to claim the benefit under section 16(3) of the Act. Mr. Shahi, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that when all the three plots constitute one block the finding of the Collector that they were adjoining raiyats the same should not have been dislodged by the Board of Revenue. On a perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge it is patent that he has given the stamp of approval to the order passed by the Board of Revenue on the ground that it had correctly discarded the report introduced at the stage of revision as the said report was a self-serving document. In our considered opinion, the view expressed by the learned Single Judge concurring with the order of the Board of Revenue cannot be found fault with inasmuch as the decision making process be the Board of Revenue is not erroneous. This view of ours gets support from the decision rendered in State of U.P. and others vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh 5 etc., AIR 1989 SC 997. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we do not perceive any merits in this appeal and hence, there is no justification to keep the same pending for the purpose of adjudicating an issue of limitation and substitution. In the result, the appeal has to pave the path of dismissal in limine, which we direct. Neyaz/ (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)