IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9079 of 2004 CHHOTAN MAHTO, SON OF LATE SHRI CHAND MAHTO ALIAS SHRI MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIKARIYA, P.O. RUKHAI, P.S. CHANDI, DISTRICT NALANDA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. ADDITIOINAL COLLECTOR, NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF. 3. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF. 4. DHARMENDRA KUMAR 5. SURESH PRASAD BOTH SONS OF SARJUG PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GOPALPUR, P.S. CHANDI, DISTRICT NALANDA. 6. BALESHWAR YADAV, SON OF LATE POKHAN YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAM NAGAR, DIYARA, TOLA OF BABU PRATAP RAI, P.S. BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT PATNA. AT PRESENT RESIDING AT VILLAGE RAMPUR BARIYARPUR, P.S. BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT PATNA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RESPONDENTS ******** 3 15.11.2010 Petitioner who is the pre-emptor claims that his land is in the southern boundary of the disputed land. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 the two brothers, purchased a land appertaining to Plot No. 3905, Khata No. 640, by a sale deed executed on 11.12.1992 and registered on 1.8.1995. Respondent No. 6 transferred 28 decimals of land in favour of respondent no. 4 (Dharmendra Kumar) and 28½ decimals of land in favour of respondent no. 5 (Suresh Prasad). The case of the petitioner is that he had earlier purchased 22 decimals of land 2 from respondent no. 6 which lies in the southern boundary of the vended land. The D.C.L.R., Hilsa and the Collector have allowed the pre-emption application on consideration of the fact that the lands of the petitioner lies in the southern boundary of the vended land. The case of the respondents is that the lands in question are Homestead lands and that out of the total area of Plot No. 3905, 3 decimals has been retained by respondent no. 6 which lies between the lands transferred by respondent no. 6 to respondent nos. 4 and 5 and lands of the petitioner, as such it has been submitted that the respondents are not the boundary raiyats. The D.C.L.R., Hilsa ignoring the case of the petitioner and only on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the respondents that he is in the southern boundary of the disputed land, allowed the pre-emption application. Likewise, the Collector dismissed the appeal of the respondent nos. 4 and 5. The Member, Board of Revenue while considering the cases of both the parties has considered an important aspect of the matter based on the map which 3 is part of the records. The entire plot of land No. 3905 as stated earlier, measures 81 decimals. The Revisional Court found that the 3 decimals of land lie between the plots transferred in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5 and the plot of the petitioner, thereafter concluded that the respondents are not the boundary raiyats of the disputed land. It does not require reference to any case law, to say that the pre-emption application can be defeated by any legal means. The fact that the land of respondent no. 6 lies between the land which was transferred in favour of the petitioner and the land transferred in favour of the respondents is a good ground to controvert the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that his land lies in the boundary of the disputed land. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the Member, Board of Revenue. This writ application is, thus, dismissed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)