IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.394 of 2007 Dharmendra Singh, son of late Lakshmi Singh @ Laxmi Singh, resident of Village- Bhimpur,P.S. Chatapur, Distt-Saharsa ---------- - Petitioner ----- Appellant. Versus 1. Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 2. Addl. Collector, Saharsa. 3. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Birpur, Saharsa. 4. Gulab Singh 5. Narain Singh 6. Balram Singh 7. Devendra Singh, all sons of Khajanchi Singh 8. Surji Devi, wife of late Ram Charitar Singh 8(i) Arjun Singh, son of late Ram Charitar Singh 8(ii) Ninku Singh, son of late Ram Charitar Singh 8(iii)Umesh Singh, son of late Ram Charitar Singh, all R/O Vill- Bhimpur, P.S.Chattarpur, District-Supaul. 9. Khokha Singh, son of Bikarama Singh, all resident of Village- Bhimpur, P.S. Chatapur, District-Saharsa ------ Respondents/Respondents. ------------- 11. 8.10.2009 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Mukund for the appellant. The petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 7637 of 1988, has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and is aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.3.2007, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. It arises out of proceedings under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the writ petition. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. Respondent nos. 8 and 9 are the original purchasers by a sale deed which was executed on 6.3.1982, and registered on 3.7.1982. Respondent nos. 4 to 7 filed an application under the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Act on 19.8.1982, which 2 was rejected by the order dated 15.3.1983 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Birpur, in Land Ceiling Case No. 9 of 1982-83. Aggrieved by the order, the pre-emptor filed an appeal which was allowed by the order dated 26.12.1985 (Annexure- 2), passed by the learned Additional Collector, Saharsa, in Case No. 52 of 1983-84 (Gulab Singh & Ors. V. Ram Charitar Singh & Ors.), and the claim for pre-emption was upheld. 2.1. It is relevant to state at this stage that respondent nos. 8 and 9 alienated the lands in question in favour of the present appellant by a registered deed of absolute sale on 31.8.1982. The present appellant was a party respondent to the appeal. 2.2. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the present appellant preferred revision application in terms of Section 32 of the Act which has been rejected by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, by his order dated 20.11.1987 (Dharmendra Singh V. Gulab Singh & Ors.) (Annexure-3), and the appellate order was upheld. The appellant herein challenged the revisional order by preferring the aforesaid C.W.J.C. No.7637 of 1988, which has been rejected by the impugned order. The present appellant, being the subsequent purchaser, was thus a party respondent before the learned appellate authority, and was himself the petitioner before the learned revisional authority as well as the learned writ court. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned revisional authority has not considered his case and dismissed the revision application. He next submits that the pre-emptor did not appear in the writ court nor in 3 the present proceedings. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It must first of all be remembered that the present pre-emption application is with respect to the sale deed in favour of respondent nos. 8 and 9.Their subsequent action of alienating the lands in question in favour of the present appellant does not appear to us to be a bona fide act, meant to defeat the claim for pre-emption. The appellant seems to have purchased litigations Secondly, three courts have found against the appellant. The learned appellate authority on an exhaustive consideration of the matter, came to the conclusion that the pre-emptor has been able to establish his case of being an adjoining raiyat. The finding of fact has been affirmed by the learned revisional authority, which in its turn, has been affirmed by the learned writ court. In such a situation, we are not inclined to interfere, and the issue seems to be concluded by findings of facts. In so far as the second contention is concerned, absence of the pre-emptor before the writ court and the present court may be an act advantageous to the appellant, and can not be an issue of grievance. The appeal is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)