IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.128 of 2009 NAND KISHORE SINGH, son of late Ram Narayan Singh resident of village Bairagi Tola Police Station Phulwaria, District Gopalganj ..Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Additional Member, Sri Ashok Vardhan, Board of Revenue, Bihar 3. Additional Collector, Gopalganj 4. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms Hathua, Gopalganj 5. Moti Lal Singh 6. Hira Lal Singh 7. Babu Lal Singh 8. Smt. Dulari Devi …Opposite parties ----------- 04- 10.3.2010 Heard Mr. S K Tiwary for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel III (Ceiling). This application has been filed by the petitioner of CWJC No. 2734 of 2007 (Nand Kishore Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), for recall and/or modification of the order dated 16.1.2009, passed therein, whereby the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner is the pre-emptor in a proceeding 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’). 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Act, claiming pre-emption with respect to the vended plot. The three authorities under the Act have consistently rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the purchasers were adjoining raiyats with respect to the land in question. The orders were affirmed by this Court. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rule 19(3) provides that a copy of the pre-emption application shall be sent simultaneously by the applicant to the transferor and the transferee by registered post with acknowledgement due. He further submits that the transferor never appeared before the three authorities under the Act, nor before this Court. Therefore, the order of this Court has to be recalled and the matter has to be reconsidered. It appears to us that the pre-emption application had been forwarded to the transferor when the matter was pending before the learned first authority. In case he chose not to appear in the matter, the petitioner (the pre-emptor) did not suffer any prejudice. On the contrary, he stood to gain by such non-appearance of the transferor. Inspite of the absence of the transferor, the petitioner was not able to establish his case. It appears that this is an absolutely frivolous application. 4. This civil review application is accordingly rejected. ( S K Katriar ) mrl