IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.842 of 2011 Kaushal Kishor Prasad, s/o Late Jagarnath Prasad, resident of village Rajasan, P. S.- Bidupur, District- Vaishali. … Preemptor-respondent no. 4-Appellant Versus 1. Smt Parmila Devi , w/o Sri Sohan Lal, resident of village Rajasan, P.S. – Bidupur, District-Vaishali. …Purchaser-petitioner-respondent 1st Set. 2. The Additional Member of Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Collector Vaishali, Hajipur. 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hajipur, Dist- Vaishali 5. Shambhu Sharan Singh 6. Santosh Kumar Both (5) and (6) are sons of Late Harihar Singh resident of village- Rajasan, P.S.- Bidupur, District- Vaishali. .. Respondents-Respondents. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, A.C. to G.P.X : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.C. to G.P.X ----------- 2. 12.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment of the Writ Court dated 24th March 2011, whereby the writ petition bearing CWJC No. 5677 of 2005 preferred by Smt. Parmila Devi, the purchaser has been allowed and pre-emption claim of the appellant over the small area of land measuring 7 ½ dhurs in one sale deed and similar area in another sale deed, has been rejected. The learned Writ Court has gone into details 2 to notice that the appellant authority, the Collector allowed the appeal of the purchaser because it was found that the land is bounded on two sides by government roads and even the inspection report of DCLR indicated that there was a newly constructed / half built house belonging to the purchaser. Thus, on facts the Writ Court has accepted that the land was purchased for purpose of pure homestead for residence. The Writ Court has further held that there was no material to rebut the contention of the purchaser that she had no other land in the village and hence she does not fall in the category of raiyat purchasing a piece of land for agriculture. There is another broader aspect to such a controversy. Once on facts it is held that a piece of land purchased is being used or intended to be used for the purpose of residence simplicitor unrelated to agricultural activities, there would arise a conflict between constitutional right to reside at a place of one’s choice and the statutory right of pre-emption granted by 3 Section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act. Once the finding of facts is accepted showing intention of the purchaser to reside over the purchased land, the constitutional right must be given precedence over the statutory right. Thus, taking overall view of the matter, we are not persuaded to interfere. The appeal is dismissed. Kanchan (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)