IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15643 of 2006 RAM SWAROOP SINGH son of Late Narayan Singh, resident of village- Mahtha, P.S.- Obra, District- Aurangabad. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, DAUDNAGAR, AURANGABAD 5. KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH SON OF RAM RAKSHYA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MAHTHA, P.S.- OBRA, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No.6, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Upadhaya, AC to SC(Ceiling)-2 For respondent no. 5 : Mr. Bajarangi Lal, Advocate Mr. Leelawati Kumar, Advocate 5 26.02.2009 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, State and respondent no.5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.5 Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.05.2006 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, respondent no.2, in Board Revision Case No. 174 of 2005 in a matter arising out of the pre-emption application filed by the respondent no.5 under sub section 3 of section 16 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that - 2 - firstly the pre-emption application filed by the respondent no.5 was itself not maintainable since the vendor was not made party to the said application, and secondly, the respondent no.5 was not the adjoining Raiyat. Learned counsel further submits that the question whether the respondent no.5 was adjoining Raiyat or not being purely a question of fact, he is not making any submission requesting this Court to adjudicate the said question on facts. He, however, submits that the said application for pre-emption ought to have been rejected for being in violation of sub-rules (3) & (4) of Rule 9 of the Bihar Land Ceiling Rules, 1963 since the applicant did not sent any notice to the transferor and transferee of the sale deed in question as required under law. It is further submitted that the above plea was however not raised by the petitioner either before the appellate authority or before the revisional authority and has raised the same for the first time in this writ application. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 submitted that the application claiming pre-emption was filed as per the rules and the prescribed format in form L.C. 13 under Rule 19(1) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Rules in which the name of the transferor and transferee both were mentioned as required in the format prescribed for filing the application. It is further submitted that the - 3 - transferor was duly noticed of the said pre-emption application and has appeared pursuant to the notice and filed an affidavit stating therein to the effect that the respondent no.5 namely, Krishna Kumar is the adjoining Raiyat of the land over which the right of pre-emption has been claimed. The said notice has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. In the above circumstances it is submitted that the impugned order is legal and valid and does not call for any interference by this Court. Upon considering the rival submission of the parties and on perusal of their respective pleadings, it would appear that the petitioner did not raise the question that the transferor was not party in the proceedings. A copy of the pre-emption application is annexed to the counter affidavit of the respondent no.5. On perusal of the said application which is in the prescribed format in terms of form L.C. 13 it would appear that the application is in the form as required under the rules bearing the name of the vendor (transferor) of the sale deed namely, Shyamanand Singh, which was executed on 31st of May, 2003 and also the name of the vendee (transferee) Ram Swaroop Singh (Petitioner). Further in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it has been specifically stated that the transferor - 4 - namely, Shyamanand Singh adduced his evidence upon notice in the shape of an affidavit to the effect that the respondent no.5 was the adjoining Raiyat. The said affidavit has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. In view of the above, the contention of the petitioner that the transferor was not a party in the pre- emption proceeding and he was not noticed in view of the categorical statement made in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit can not be accepted. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the impugned order which has been passed after due consideration of the entire relevant facts. In the result, the writ application is dismissed being devoid of any merit. mcverma (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)