IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.925 of 2009 RADHA MANDAL son of Late Pyare Mandal, resident of village Satghara, PS Habibpur, P.O Shahjadpur, Sub-division Sadar Anchal Jagdishpur, District Bhagalpur . ....respondent no.5.... appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Additional Member Board of Revenue Bihar, Patna 3. The Additional Collector Bhagalpur, District Bhagalpur 4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms Bhagalpur .........respondent 1st set 5. Rajeshwar Mandal son of Late Ratto Mandal, resident of village Dighi PS Nath Nagar District Bhagalpur 6. Pramod Mandal son of Rajeshwar Mandal, resident of village Dighi PS Nath Nagar District Bhagalpur ............respondent 2nd set 7. Banarsi Mandal son of Late Bisheshwar Mandal, resident of village Satghara PS Habibpur, District Bhagalpur ............respondent 3rd set ----------- 4 22-02-2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. At this stage it is not necessary for us to consider the caveat petition filed by Banarsi Mandal, the writ petitioner. Although there is a delay of eight days in preferring this appeal and I.A. No. 4393/2009 has been filed on behalf of the appellant for seeking condonation of such delay, we have decided to look into the merits of the appeal before considering the matter of limitation. On merits it has been submitted that if purchase of an agricultural land is permitted to be made by two sale deeds and thereby holding the purchaser to 2 have become boundary Raiyat, this methodology can be used by any purchaser to defeat the right of preemption u/s 16 (3) of Bihar Ceiling Act. It has further been submitted that although, as required by Rule 19 (3) of the Rules framed under the Ceiling Act, the transferor was required to be made a party and given notice but such lapse should be ignored treating the same to be directory, more so when the transferor was subsequently impleaded and no prejudice was caused to any of the parties. Lastly it has been submitted that the concurrent finding of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms and the Collector, Land Reforms that the vended land is a homestead land was rightly interfered with by the learned Member, Board of Revenue because such a finding was based mainly upon recital in the sale deed that the purchaser was purchasing the land for the purpose of homestead. We have considered the judgement under appeal and we find that all the aforesaid three points have been considered in detail and decided in the light of earlier judgements of the court. So far as 3rd point that the land has been purchased for the purpose of 3 homestead is concerned, considering that the total area of the land is only six and half kathas and as per recital in the sale deed made before there could be any apprehension of preemption, the purchase was for the purpose of constructing a house, the finding cannot be faulted. In such circumstances, in our view the writ court rightly held that the right of preemption is a weak right and stands defeated on all the aforesaid three grounds. We find no good reason to interfere in the matter. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine on merits. In view of aforesaid discussion, there is no need to decide the issue of limitation. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (C. M. Prasad, J.)