IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1428 of 2004 1) Sheo Mohan Singh, 2) Sheo Bachan Singh, both sons of Deep Narain Singh, village Phool Sathar, PS Kuartha, District Jehanabad (Arwal) – Petitioners. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) The Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3) The Collector, Arwal. 4) The D.C.L.R., Jehanabad (now Arwal). 5) Chandra Prabha Kumari, wife of Shri Mahendra Narain Verma, 6) Sri Satyadeo Singh, son of Late Hira Singh, both of Phool Sathar, PS Kurtha, district Arwal – Respondents. 6 6.9.2010 The petitioners are the pre-emptor’s and are aggrieved by order of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue who has decided the case in favour of the respondent purchaser. The facts of the case are that respondent no. 6 had executed a sale deed on 3.1.2001 in favour of respondent no. 5. The petitioners filed an application under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act claiming that they are the boundary raiyats. In this case it would appear on perusal of the order passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, that the D.C.L.R. without issuing any notice to the purchaser has allowed the pre- emption application and had, thus, violated the provisions of rule 19(3). The defect was detected during the proceeding and the respondent purchaser filed an appeal. It would appear from the order of the appellate court that it has only considered whether rule 19 was properly followed in the case in hand. Not a word has been said regarding the merits of the case. The Additional Collector hearing the appeal ought to have conducted an enquiry 2 with respect to the nature of the land as it is specific case of the purchaser that he has purchased the lands in question for residential purpose and that he has no other land except the land which he purchased through the sale deed in question. These aspects of the matter are important for the purposes of deciding the pre-emption application. The order passed in the appeal is non-speaking order on the merits of the case. The Board of Revenue has, therefore, found that the order passed in the appeal is bad in law and illegal and does not consider the factual aspect of the matter. In the circumstances this court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)