IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13959 of 2007 1. Ram Niwas Singh, son of Late Ramji Singh, 2. Manoj Kumar Singh @ Ghutar Singh, son of Late Ram Jatan Singh, Resident of Village- Kashba, Abaipur, P.S. Surajgarha, District- Lakhisarai. .... Petitioners. Versus 1.The State of Bihar, through the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Land Reforms & Survey, Patna. . 2. The Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Collector, Lakhisarai. 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Lakhisarai. 5. Polo Mandal, son of Kishun Mandal. 6. Arjun Mandal, son of Kishun Mandal. Both resident of village- Kasba Abhaipur, P.S. Piri Bazar, District- Lakhisarai. ..... Respondents. ----------- 02- 27.02.2009 Heard Mr. Bijay Kumar Pandey for the petitioners, and Ms. Kumari Amrita, learned Standing Counsel No.1 (Ceiling) for respondent nos.1 to 4. It arises out of proceedings under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). It is directed against the order dated 4.9.1993 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, in Revision Case No.255 of 1992 (Polo Mandal Vs. Ram Jatan Singh), whereby the revision application preferred by the 2 preemptors has been allowed, his pre-emption application in terms of Section 16(3) of the Act has been allowed, the orders of the learned first authority and that of the learned appellate authority have been set aside. The petitioners are purchasers. We have not felt the necessity of issuing notices to respondent nos.5 and 6 in view of the nature of the order that we are going to pass. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners had purchased 131/2 decimals of Basgit (Homestead) land pertaining to Khata no.199, Khesra No.1561(New), situate in Mauza Kasba, Pargana- Abhaipur, P.S. Surajgarha, District- Munger, now Lakhisarai, for residential purposes from one Yamuna Mandal of village- Kasba Abhaipur, P.S.- Piri Bazar, and P.S.- Surajgarha, District- Munger, now Lakhisarai. Respondent nos.5 and 6 preferred application under section 16(3) of the Act claiming right of pre-emption with respect to the vended plot on the ground that they are co- sharers. The petitioners being the purchasers filed written statement stating therein that 3 the land in question is not agricultural and, therefore, beyond the purview of Section 16(3) of the Act. The purchasers did not set up the case that they are either co-sharers or adjoining raiyats. I do not feel the necessity of recapitulating the first round of litigation before the authorities under the Act. Suffice it to state as to the first round that the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, passed order dated 4.9.1993 (Annexure-1), in Case No.255 of 1992, whereby orders of the authorities below were set aside and the matter was remitted back to the learned first authority to determine the issue whether or not the land in question is agricultural in nature and whether the same is beyond the purview of Section-16(3) of the Act. He had also directed for local inspection. 3. The learned first authority thereafter ensured local inspection and, on consideration of the materials before him, rejected the pre-emption application by his order dated 24.8.1996 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned L.R.D.C., Lakhisarai, in Case No.2 of 1989-90 (Polo Mandal Vs. Ram Jatan Singh and others). Aggrieved by this order, the 4 preemptors preferred appeal which was also rejected by the order dated 11.4.2000 (Annexure-4), passed by the learned Collector of the district of Lakhisarai, in Land Ceiling Appeal Case No.10 of 1996-97 (Polo Mandal Vs. Ram Jatan Singh), whereby the appeal was rejected. Aggrieved by this order, the pre- emptors preferred revision application which has been allowed by the impugned order. The Board of Revenue, has on a consideration of the materials on record, reversed the findings recorded by the two authorities below him and has proceeded to hold that the lands are agricultural in nature. Therefore, the application under section 16(3) of the Act is maintainable. 4. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was not open to the learned revisional authority to set aside the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two authorities below him. He relies on the judgment of this Court, reported in 2007 (4) P.L.J.R. 109 (Triveni Singh Vs. the State of Bihar & others). The learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned order. 5 5. It appears to me on a perusal of the materials on record that the Board of Revenue has recorded a finding of fact that the lands in question are agricultural in nature. This is an issue of fact which he was obliged to examine in view of the scope, sweep and jurisdiction under Section-32 of the Act. Law is well settled that the forum of revision under section-32 of the Act is one of unlimited jurisdiction and the Board of Revenue is duty- bound to examine all issues of facts and laws raised before him. He was, therefore, entirely within his jurisdiction, indeed duty-bound, to examine the most contentious issue raised before him- whether or not the land in question is agricultural in nature. He has, on appreciation of the materials on record, concluded the finding of fact to the aforesaid effect. It is normally not open to this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction to re- appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion subject to exceptional circumstances. 6. As stated hereinabove, the purchasers did not set-up any case before the authorities under the Act that they were co- sharers or adjoining raiyats with respect to 6 the vended plot. On the contrary, the pre- emptors have set up a clear case that they are co-sharers with respect to the vended plots. The learned first authority and the learned appellate authority have, on a consideration of the materials before them, upheld this part of the case. I must state that the learned revisional authority did not discuss this issue at all. However, on a perusal of the materials on record, I am of the view that the pre- emptors are adjoining raiyats. 6. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/