IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1559 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12179 of 2004 With Interlocutory Application No. 7347 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1559 of 2011. ====================================================== Suraj Sah, Son of Late Budhu Sah, Resident of Village - Alampur, P.S.- Seo Sagar, District - Rohtas at Sasaram (Bihar) .... .... Respondent …. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna 3. The Additional Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram 4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Rohtas at Sasaram 5. Lallu Sah, Son of Late Bandhu Sah, Resident of Village - Alampur, P.S. - Sheo Sagar, District – Rohtas, At present Baliganj No. 1, Circular Road, Kolkata-700019 …. Respondents …. Respondents IInd Set. 6. Bishwanath Yadav, Son of Sarju Yadav, Resident of Alampur, P.S. - Sheo Sagar, District - Rohtas 7. Manoj Yadav, Son of Sarju Yadav, Resident of Alampur, P.S. - Sheo Sagar, District - Rohtas .... .... Petitioners …. Respondent/s ====================================================== with Letters Patent Appeal No.1576 of 2011 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12003 of 2004 With Interlocutory Application No. 7397 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1576 of 2011. ====================================================== Suraj Sah, Son of Late Budhu Sah, Resident of Village - Alampur, P.S.- Seo Sagar, District - Rohtas .... .... Respondent …. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna Patna High Court LPA No.1559 of 2011 (3) dt.04-11-2011 2 / 4 2 3. The Additional Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram 4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Rohtas at Sasaram 5. Lallu Sah, Son of Late Bandhu Sah, Resident of Village - Alampur, P.S. - Sheo Sagar, District – Rohtas, …. Respondents …. Respondents IInd Set. 6. Bishwanath Yadav, Son of Sarju Yadav, Resident of Alampur, P.S. - Sheo Sagar, District - Rohtas 7. Manoj Yadav, Son of Sarju Yadav, Resident of Alampur, P.S. - Sheo Sagar, District - Rohtas .... .... Petitioners …. Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In LPA No.1559 of 2011) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Mr. D. Chaubey and Mr. Lallan Pandey, Advocates. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajeev Kr. Singh, GP 15. (In LPA No.1576 of 2011) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey and Mr. D. Chaubey and Mr. Lallan Pandey, Advocates. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajeev Kr. Singh, GP 15. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 04-11-2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 7347 of 2011 and Interlocutory Application No. 7397 of 2011. The delay of 180 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1559 of 2011 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 1576 of 2011. These two Appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent are preferred by the preemptor, the respondent no. 5, Patna High Court LPA No.1559 of 2011 (3) dt.04-11-2011 3 / 4 3 against the common judgment and order dated 9th February 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 12179 of 2004 and CWJC No. 12003 of 2004. The appellant claimed right to preemption in respect of two pieces of lands situated at Village - Alampur, P.S. - Sheo Sagar, District - Rohtas. The said parcels of land were sold by the original owner Lallu Sah to the purchasers Bishwanath Yadav and Manoj Yadav in 1999 by registered sale deeds. It is not in dispute that on account of the purchase of two parcels of land the said purchasers became adjoining raiyat. The appellant claimed right to preemption on the premise that he was a co-sharer of the vendor Lallu Sah. The claim has been rejected by both the authorities below and the learned single Judge. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey has appeared for the appellant. He has vehemently argued that the appellant is admittedly a co-sharer of the vendor and that the purchasers, with a view to defeating the claim of the appellant, made two purchases so as to become adjoining raiyat. Mr. Pandey has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sheoji Mahto and Ors. Vs. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue & Ors. {1997 (1) PLJR 46 (SC)}. We see no substance in the argument advanced before us. The submission is misconceived as not only the claim that the preemptor is the co-sharer of the vendor is disputed, the concurrent finding of the authorities below and the learned single Judge is that the appellant was not a co-sharer of the vendor Lallu Sah. The purchasers themselves having become adjoining Patna High Court LPA No.1559 of 2011 (3) dt.04-11-2011 4 / 4 4 raiyat, the claim of the appellant for preemption has rightly been rejected. No case for interference is made out. The Appeals are dismissed in limine. Dilip. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)