IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15593 of 2009 MD.JAHID, SON OF MD. HABIB, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PARANPUR BADHULI, P.O.- GHORBARA, P.S- BOCHAHA, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MEMBER OF BOARD OF REVENUE BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 3. ADDITIONAL MEMBER OF BOARD OF REVENUE BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR(LAND CEILING), MUZAFFARPUR, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. 6. D.C.L.C.(EAST), MUZAFFARPUR, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. 7. RAGHUNATH TIWARY, SON OF LATE RAM SEVAK TIWARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MODHEPURA, P.S.- HATHAURI, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. 8. KUSHESHWAR THAKUR, SON OF DEO NARAIN THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PARANPUR BADHAULI, P.O.- GHORBARA, P.S- BOCHAHA, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. ... ... RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 17.11.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. Petitioner is the Vendee of a sale deed which was subject matter of a preemption case which was dismissed by the Collector under the Act, namely, the D.C.L.R. under orders dated 23.6.2001 (Annexure-4) against which the preemptor filed an appeal which was allowed under orders dated 25.9.2006 (Annexure-6). The Vendee assailed the appellate order by filing Revision Case No.249 of 2006, which was never considered on the merit either for admission or hearing and - 2 - dismissed under orders dated 25.10.2007 for failure of the parties to be present to prosecute the same. For recalling the order dated 25.10.2007 so that the revision application may be heard on merit, petitioner filed restoration application, which has been dismissed under orders dated 17.9.2009 on the ground that the same has been filed after a gap of one year and six months. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the State, it appears that the Revision Case No.249 of 2006 was never considered by the revisional authority on merits and the two orders dismissing the revision case and the restoration application has been passed for the failure of the lawyer to appear on 25.10.2007 and under order dated 17.9.2009 on the ground of delay in filing the restoration application. It is thus evident that the order dated 25.10.2007 and 17.9.2009 have been passed by the Board of Revenue in the aforesaid revision case on consideration other than merit of the dispute.Right to preemption being a weak right,revision application ought to have been - 3 - N.H./ considered on merits. In the circumstances, I set aside the order dated 17.9.2009 and 25.10.2007 passed in Revision Case No.249 of 2006 and remit back the matter to the Board of Revenue for consideration of the revision case on merits in accordance with law. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. ( V.N. Sinha,J.)