IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16014 of 2001 SURUCHI DEVI wife of Late Shrawan Kumar Resident of billage- Kamal Bigha, P.O.- Birnama P.S.- Chandi, District- Nalanda At present residing at village- Dehlichak Within Birnama Mahal, P.S.- Chandi District- Nalanda Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Collector, Nalanda 2. The Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna 3. The Collector, Nalanda 4. The Additional Collector, Nalanda 5. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hilsa, P.S.- Hilsa, Nalanda 6. Muneshwar Prasad, son of Late Sheo Prasad resident of village- Dehlichak, P.S.- Birnama P.S.- chandi, District- Nalanda 7. Md. Sazzad Khan son of Late Abdul Rahman Khan resident of village- Dehlichak, P.S.- Birnama P.S.- chandi, District- Nalanda. ----------- 6 20.01.2009 Heard the counsels appearing for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the revisional order dated 22.09.2001 (Annexure-4) passed by the respondent no.2, Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in Revision Case No. 72 of 2000 dismissing his revision application against the order dated 02.02.1999 passed by the Additional Collector, Nalanda, respondent no.4 by which petitioner’s appeal was dismissed against the order dated 05.12.1995 (Annexure-2) of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector allowing the claim of pre-emption of the respondent no.6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent-L.R.D.C., the Collector on appeal and the - 2 - Revisional Court failed to appreciate the case of the petitioner that she was a landless person or in alternative she is the adjoining Raiyat of the land in question over which the pre-emption is claimed by the respondent no.6. Besides the above, it is submitted that the application under section 16(1) of the Bihar Land Reform (fixation of ceiling area and acquisition of surplus land) Act was filed after one day of the period fixed for filing the application. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the petitioner is concerned, she is landless within the meaning of the aforesaid Act and if she is landless then no pre-emption can be claimed under section 16(1) of the Act. In alternative if she is not a landless, she claimed herself to be an adjoining Raiyat of the land in question as well. The authorities failed to consider this aspect of the matter. Learned counsel in course of submissions submits that the case of the petitioner was that her case was not considered in its correct perspective, and therefore, the orders passed by the respondents, as contained in Annexures- 2, 3 & 4 deserve to be quashed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.6 submits that the application claiming pre-emption was filed on 91st day as the 90th day was a holiday, and as such, it was filed on the next date when the Court reopened open and as such the same was within - 3 - time. As regards the claim of the petitioner that she was a landless/adjoining Raiyat the same have been considered by the respondent-L.R.D.C. while passing the original order as well as the appellate order passed by the respondent no.4 on appeal and also by the revisional Court on revision vide the orders contained in Annexures- 3 & 4. It is further submitted that the authorities have thoroughly discussed the case of the petitioner-herein in the light of the objection filed by him, and the authorities have concurrently rejected the case of the petitioner on thorough consideration, and as such, it calls for no interference. Upon hearing the submission of the parties and considering their respective pleadings as also the order passed by the L.R.D.C. (Annexure-2), the order passed on appeal by the Additional Collector vide order dated 02.02.1999 (Annexure-3) and the order dated 22.09.2008 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue (Annexure-4), it appears that the original authority as well as the appellate authority have gone into details of the respective case of the parties and also the documents filed in their respective cases and the findings are purely questions of fact arrived on appreciation of the documents on record and this Court in writ jurisdiction can not re-adjudicate the findings/appreciate the - 4 - evidences on record for arriving to the finding over which the authorities have arrived. This being the position, I do not find any error in the order impugned. This writ application, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)