CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.3678 OF 1997 In the matter of an application under Article 226 Of the Constitution of India. -------- 1. GAJADHAR ROY & 2. HALDHAR ROY, BOTH S/O LATE TILOKI RAI R/O VILL- KADWA TOAL- PRATAP NAGAR PS. NAUGACHIA, DISTT.-BHAGALPUR--- -------( PURCHASERS) PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER, BHAGALPUR DIVISION, BHAGALPUR 4. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BHAGALPUR 5. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, NAUGACHIA ------------Respondents (1ST SET) 6. LAKHAN SINGH S/O PAIRU SINGH R/O VILLAGE- KADWA, TOLA- PRATAPNAGAR PS. NAUGACHIA,DISTT-BHAGALPUR(PRE-EMPTOR) 7. DHNUSHDHARI SINGH S/O LATE RAMESHWAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- PRATAP NAGAR P.S. NAUGACHIA, DISTT-BHAGALPUR------ RESPONDENTS ( 2ND SET) -------- For The PetitionerS :MS SHIV CHITRA GUPATA PRASAD & BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATES For The Respondent : KUMARI AMRITA(SC. CEILING) --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI A.K.Tripathi,J Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Standing counsel ceiling. This writ application is being disposed of on the very limited question. An earlier dispute claiming right of pre -emption between the parties before the court of DCLR ended in favour of the petitioners. On an appeal filed by the private respondent the order was interfered with by the appellate forum i.e. Additional Collector, Bhagalpur. But on a mistaken legal advise, instead of filing a revision under section 32 of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act before Board of Revenue, a revision was filed before the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur. The revision was rightly rejected and thereafter the petitioners moved the court of Member Board of Revenue, Government of Bihar. But vide order dated 26.12.1996 the Additional Member Board of Revenue rejected the - 2 - revision on the ground that a wrong forum had initially been pursued and due to delay and latches and in absence of a categorical affidavit the revision cannot be maintained here. It is well known in law that remedy before the wrong forum bona-fidly is a good ground for condonation if an application is moved in this regard before the correct forum showing the cause. Rejecting an application for revision on this ground alone is a hyper technical view and does not serve the interest of justice. The Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should be given liberty before the revisional forum to be heard on merit and a decision render in this regard before the parties decide to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order dated 26.12.1996 passed by the Additional Member Board of Revenue is hereby set aside. Liberty is granted to the petitioners that in case a separate condonation petition had not been filed with the revision application, they have liberty to do so and thereafter the matter would be decided on its own merit. Since it is an old matter, it is hoped and expected that an early decision by Board of Revenue would be in order. This writ application is allowed to the limited extent indicated above. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 18th November, 2008 NAFR/RPS/Sr.Secy.