IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1147 of 2010 Prakash Yadav @ Prakash Chandra Yadav S/o Late Wakil Yadav, resident of Village- Sandalpur, P.S. Muffasil, District-Munger. …..Preemtor/petitioner….Appellant. Versus 1.The State of Bihar. 2.The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Additional Collector, Munger. 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Munger. 5.Most. Savitri Devi, Widow of Late Muneshwar Yadav. 6. Anil Kumar @ Anil Yadav. 7. Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Yadav. 8. Sheo Kumar @ Sheo Kumar Yadav. 9.Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Kumar Yadav. Sl.Nos.6 to 9 are sons of Late Muneshwar Yadav . 10. Pappu Yadav S/o Late Muneshwar Yadav. 11. Usha Devi. All three are daughters of 12.Smt. Asha Devi. lateMuneshwar Yadav. 13. Smt.Shivomani Devi . All Sl.Nos.5 to 13 are residents of Village-Sandalpur, P.S.Muffasil, District – Munger. 14.Shiv Charan Yadav S/o Late Chulashi Yadav. 15. Jai Kishore Yadav. 16.Jagendra Prasad Yadav Both sons of Shiv Charan Yadav. 17. Arvind Kumar Yadav. 18. Servind Kumar Yadav. 19. Damodar Pd. Yadav. All are respondent nos.17 to 19 are the minor sons of Shiv Charan Yadav, under the guardianship of their father Shiv Charan Yadav. All are residents of Village-Sandalpur, P.S.Muffasil, District Munger. ….Respondent….. Respondents. ----------- 2. 29.6.2011. Heard Mr. Gopal Jee, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Ajay, learned Standing Counsel No.11 for respondent nos.1 to 4. This appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by respondent no.5 of C.W.J.C. No.9502 of 1989 (preferred by respondent nos.5 to 13 herein), and is aggrieved by 2 the order dated 30.6.2010, whereby the writ petition has been allowed, and the order dated 30.6.2010, passed by the learned revisional authority has been set aside. The pre-emption application preferred by the present appellant stands rejected.By order dated 30.6.2010, the learned Single Judge has also dismissed Civil Review petition No.194 of 2009. 2) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the case may be indicated. Late Muneshwar Yadav, husband of respondent no.5 herein, purchased the land in question covering an area of 2 kathas and 1 dhoor by a deed of absolute sale registered on 15.5.1979. In other words, respondent nos.5 to 13 (herein the writ petitioners), are the heirs and legal representatives of Late Muneshwar Yadav. 2.1) The appellant herein had filed an application 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”), claiming preemption with respect to the land in question on the ground that he is an adjoining raiyat with respect to the vended plot. It has a chequered history, and there is no need to recaptulate the details of the earlier stages of the chain of litigations. Suffice it to state that, in the second round of litigation relevant in the present context, the learned LRDC, being the first authority, held that the pre-emptor ( the appellant herein) is not adjoining raiyat, and the land in question is not agricultural in nature. It is homestead land. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant‟s claim for 3 preemption was upheld. The revision application preferred by the purchaser before the learned Board of Revenue was dismissed, and the findings recorded by the learned appellate authority were upheld, leading to the writ petition at the instance of the purchasers. 3) The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition preferred by the purchasers (respondent nos.5 to 13 herein), has set aside the order of the learned revisional authority, and has restored that of the learned L.R.D.C. In other words, the learned Single Judge has rejected the claim for preemption set up by the present appellant. He has held that the land in question is not agricultural in nature, is „basobas‟, and is surrounded by residential houses. 4) We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge for the reasons assigned in his order. We upheld the order dated 5.12.2007, passed in C.W.J.C. No.9502 of 1989. We also agree with the order dated 30.6.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing Civil Review petition No.194 of 2009. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. AnilKrSinha (S.K.Katriar , J.) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)