IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6934 of 2007 Shashi Dhar Ram Tiwari son of Raj Kishore Ram Tiwari resident of Village-Gausia, P.S. Manjha Garh, District-Gopalganj ---- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 2. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar Patna. 3. The Collector, Gopalganj 4. Sub-divisioanl Officer, Gopalganj. 5. Circle Officer, Manjha Garh Block, District- Gopalganj 6. Munna Tiwary son of late Dharam Nath Tiwari, resident of Village-Gausia, p.S. Manjhagarh, District-Gopalganj. 7. Nav Ratan Ram Tiwari, son of late Pawan Ram Tiwari, resident of Village-Gausia, P.S. Manjhagarh,District-Gopalganj. 8. Prabhawati Devi wife of Ram Saroj Pandey, Presently residing at Village- Gausia, P.S. Manjha Garh, District- Gopalganj ----- Respondents. ---------- 2. 5.2.2009 Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chandram for the petitioner, and Mr. Rajnish Kant, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No.3 (Ceiling). It relates to proceedings under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act,1961(herein after referred to as the Act), and is directed against the order dated 7.2.2006, passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, in Case No. 87 of 2003 (Dharam Nath Tiwari & Ors. V. Shasshidhar Ram & Ors.), whereby the revision application preferred by the pre- emptor has been allowed, the order of the learned appellate 2 authority has been set aside, and that of the learned first authority has been restored. The purchaser is the petitioner before me. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner purchased the plot in question by a register deed of absolute sale on 19.12.1986 (Annexure-1). It is with respect to survey plot nos. 411, 412, 2166, 1793, 410, covering the total area of 3 Kathas 10 ¼ Dhurs, appertaining to Khata No. 300 and 280, situate at Village Gausia, Police Station- Manjhagarh, District-Gopalganj. Respondent nos. 6 and 7 filed an application under section 16(3) of the Act which was allowed by the order dated 28.8.1992 (Annexure-3)/, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, in L.C. Case No. 51/86- 87/18/91-92 (Dharamnath Tiwary & Ors. Vrs. Shashidhar Ram Tiwary & Ors.). The learned first authority held that pre- emptor is a adjoining raiyat as well as co-sharer with respect to vended plot and the same is agricultural land. In other words, the case of the purchasers (petitioner herein) that it is a basgit land rather than a agricultural land, has been rejected. The purchaser’s appeal was allowed by the order dated 3.3.2003 (Annexure-5), passed by the learned Additional Collector, Gopalganj, in L.C. Appeal no. 26/92/18/97-98 (Shashidhar Tiwary Vrs. Charamnath Tiwary & Ors.), and that of the learned first authority is set aside, and the pre-emptor 3 application was rejected. Aggrieved by this order the pre- emptor filed revision application which has been allowed by the impugned order, the order of the learned appellate authority has been set aside, and the findings of fact recorded by that of the learned first appellate authority have been restored. Learned revisional authority has held that the pre-emptor is adjoing raiyat as well as co-sharer and the land in question is agricultural land rather than basgit. The purchaser did not set up a case of being a co-sharer or adjoining raiyat with respect to the vended land. His only case is that the land in question is Basgit and, therefore, beyond the purview of the Act, which has been rejected. The issue is concluded by findings of fact which is difficult to be assailed in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)