IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12166 of 2007 Rameshwar Prasad Singh, son of late Jagdamba Prasad Singh resident of Village Chandauli, P.S. Belsand, District-Sitamarhi ---------- Petitioner(Pre-emptor). Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Sitamarhi 3. The Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Additioanl Collector, Sitamarhi 5. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms Sitamarhi Sadar. 6. Prem Chand Singh, son of late Sukhalu Singh, resident of Village- Maniyari, Madhubani, P.S. Sitamarhi, District Sitamarhi (purchaser of the land) 7. Janki Nandan Singh S/O Late Lal Narayan Singh, resident of Village Chandauli, P.S. Belsand, District Sitamarhi (vendor) 8. Mukesh Kumar Son of late Kameshwar Singh 9. Abhishesh Kumar 10. Abhyuday Kumar, both sons of late Mukul Kumar, all 7, 8 and 9 are resident of Village Chandauli, P.S. Belsand, District-Sitamarhi (subsequent purchaser) --------- Respondetns. ------------- 2. 20.2.2009 Heard Mr. Vijoy Pandey for the petitioner, and Mr. Rajnish Kant, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No.3 (Ceiling). This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.3.2005(Annexure-3), passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, in Pre-emption Case No. 194 of 2003 ( Prem Chand Singh Vrs. Rameshwar Prasad Singh & Ors.), whereby he has allowed the revision application of respondent no.6, has set aside the order of the learned appellate authority, and has restored that of the learned first authority. 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). We do not feel the necessity of issuing notices to respondent nos. 6 to 10 in view of the nature of the order that we are going to pass. 2 2. Respondent no.7 alienated the following lands with respect to R.S. Plot nos.1896, 1897, 1899, area 0.22 decimals, appertaining to Khata No. 52, situate in village Maniyari Madhubani, P.S. Sitamarhi, District Sitamarhi, in favour of respondent no.6, by registered deed of absolute sale on 30.5.1998. The petitioner filed an application under section 16(3) of the Act, claiming right of pre- emption against respondent no.6. The petitioner claims to be adjoining raiyat as well as co-sharer. Respondent no.6 submitted his show-cause, inter alia, stating therein that he has alienated the lands in question in favour of Kameshwar Singh (deceased) by registered deed of absolute sale on 19.4.2000. The petitioner did not take any step to implead Kameshwar Singh as opposite party in the proceedings. The petitioner’s application was rejected by the order dated 14.12.2000 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sitamarhi Sadar, in Consolidation Case No. 2/2000 (Rameshwar Prasad Singh Vrs. Prem Chand Singh & Ors.), on the ground that Kameshwar Singh the second transferee, has not been impleaded as opposite party. The petitioner preferred appeal which has been allowed by the order dated 23.8.2003 (Annexure-2), passed by the learned Additional Collector, Sitamarhi, in Case No. 2 of 2000-2001 Rameshwar Prasad Singh Vrs. Prem Chandra Singh & Ors.), whereby his pre-emption application was allowed and respondent no.6 was directed to transfer the land in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, respondent no.6 herein preferred revision application which has been allowed by the impugned order on the ground that, in spite of 3 clear knowledge of the second alienation, Kameshwar Singh or his heirs have not been impleaded as a party by any one. Hence this writ petition. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders of the learned first authority and the learned revisional authority have proceeded on an erroneous assumption that Kameshwar Singh deceased or his heirs are necessary party. They have failed to realize that second transfer was made after the petitioner’s pre-emption application was filed, and was meant to defeat his statutory right of pre-emption. Learned Government Counsel has supported the impugned order and submits that the petitioner’s pre-emption application has been rightly rejected in a situation where the pre-emption had become fully aware of the second alienation from the show-cause of respondent no.6 filed before the learned first authority. He relies on the following reported judgments: (i) Sushil Kumar Choudhary & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1997 (1)P.L.J.R. 857 (ii) Fauzdari Choudhary & Ors., Vs. The Addl. Member, Board of Revenue & Ors., reported in 1993 (1) P.L.J.R. 250. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Before we proceed further we may state that Kameshwar Singh is dead and his heirs are on record as respondent nos. 8 to 10 herein. It is evident that 4 respondent no.6, the first transferee, had clearly stated in his show- cause before the learned first authority that he has alienated the land in favour of Kameshwar Singh on 19.4.2000, notwithstanding which the petitioner did not take steps to implead him or his heirs as parties. The heirs of Kameshwar Singh were for the first time impleaded as parties in the revision application preferred by respondent no.6. In that view of the matter, the learned first authority as well as learned revisional authority have rightly held that in the absence of Kameshwar Singh, the second transferee, and/or his heirs, the revision application can not proceed further. The pre-emption application was, therefore, rightly rejected. Learned Government counsel has rightly relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Choudhary (supra). The writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )