IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15720 of 2005 JEET BAHAN YADAV SON OF LATE BHAJU YADAV, R/O- VILLAGE CHITARSARI, P.O.- BISHAMBHARPUR, VIA RAFIGANJ, P.S.- KASMA, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD. 4. THE D.C.L.R. AURANGABAD. 5. MITARAM YADAV, S/O- LATE SHEO BALAK YADAV 6. JAGATRI DEVI, W/O- MITARAM YADAV 7. SMT. JASODA DEVI W/O- SIDHESHWAR SINGH ALL R/O- VILLAGE CHITARSARI, P.O.- BISHAMBHARPUR VIA RAFIGANJ, P.S.- KASMA DISTRICT AURANGABAD (BIHAR). For the petitioner : None For the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 : Mr. Mukul Prasad, Advocate. ----------- 3 02.05.2011 Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.7.2005 passed in Ceiling Revision Case No. 232 of 2003 ( Jitwahan Yadav versus Mita Ram Yadav and Anr.) whereby the revision stood rejected. Petitioner is purchaser. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are preemptors. Respondent No. 7 is the vendor. On 16.7.1999, 4-1/5 decimals of land appertaining to Khata No. 22 Plot No. 1431 and 7 decimals of land appertaining to Khata No. 26 Plot No. 1432 of Mauza Chitarsari in the district of Aurangabad were vended by respondent No. 7 in favour of the writ petitioner. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, claiming themselves to be the adjoining raiyat(s) of the vended land, filed a proceeding under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) giving rise to L.C. Case No. 9/2000-01. Respondent 2 D.C.L.R. after hearing both the sides allowed the said application by a proceeding dated 15.6.2001 (Annexure-3). Aggrieved by the said order, writ petitioner (purchaser) preferred appeal being L.C. Appeal No. 109/2001- 02/04/2003-04 which was considered and dismissed by order dated 9.9.2003 (Annexure-4). Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the purchaser (writ petitioner) filed revision application which was dismissed vide order dated 4.7.2005 (Annexure-5) giving rise to the present application. There is consistent finding recorded by the three Courts that the preemptor (respondent Nos. 5 and 6) after alienating few lands for construction of Community Hall were still left with land in the plot which lay adjoining to the vended plots. This Court, in view of the said finding(s) recorded by the three Courts below, is not inclined to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to set aside these finding(s) based on pleadings on record. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)