CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.1920 OF 1991 A K Tripathi,J. In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ------ Badri Narayan Singh …………………… Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar and others …………….. Respondents For the petitioner : M/S. Vindhya Keshari Kumar, Sr Advocate, Ranjana Sinha and Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh. For the State: S C 5. P r e s e n t THE HON`BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI Petitioner wants quashing of the order dated 2.12.1987 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, contained in annexure-6 as well as the order passed in review contained in annexure-3, in addition to the order dated 17.12.1982 passed by the DCLR, West Muzaffarpur contained in annexure-4. 2. The dispute arose after an application for pre- emption under section 16(3) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 was filed by respondent Nos.5 to 9 when respondent No.10 Rampati Kuer executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner regarding various piece and parcel of land indicated in para 3 of the writ application. 3. Submission of senior learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the DCLR as well as the revisional authority have committed error on fact as well as in law because there is no clear cut finding that the pre-emptors still had land and were co- sharers with the vendor, keeping in mind that over a period of time - 2 - the share of Rampati Devi came to be clearly defined and pre- emptors had alientated their share of land by various deeds. The revisional court has committed error by presuming jointness with the vendor and the court had ignored the evidence which has been brought on record in this regard. Emphasis is placed on annexures 1 and 2 to the writ application. 4. There is assertion in the writ application that a kind of mischief was played in the office of the Additional Member Board of Revenue because necessary documents which were filed did not remain on the record and the same was not considered. Keeping in mind the annexures 1 and 2 the presumption of jointness in favour of pre-emptors is misplaced more so when there is a categorical finding rendered by the appellate court that they were not the adjoining raiyats any more on the disputed land in question. 5. The writ application is allowed. The orders contained in annexures 3, 4 and 6 are hereby quashed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) Patna High Court: The 16th December, 2008. (NAFR) R K Pathak.