IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3548 of 2011 Amit Kumar Upadhyay, Son of Markandey Upadhyay, R/o-Vill.-Parasathua, P.S.-Kochas, District-Rohtas (Sasaram). –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Director, Consolidation, Rohtas at Sasaram. 4. The Consolidation Officer, Kudra, Kaimur. 5. Manoj Kumar Singh. 6. Hari Charan Singh. Both Sons of Late Bhola Singh. 7. Ramanta Kuer, W/o-Late Bahadur Singh. Respondent Nos.5to7 are resident of Vill.-Parasathua, P.S.-Kochas, District- Rohtas (Sasaram). –Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Om Prakash Upadhyay Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Upadhyay For the Pvt.-respondents : Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1. For the State : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, AAG-12. ----------- 03 27.06.2011 Pursuant to notice issued to private-respondent nos.5 to 7, who are the pre-emptors, they have appeared and filed their Vakalatnama. As the facts are not in dispute, with consent of parties, the writ petition has been heard for final disposal at this stage itself. It appears that writ petitioner who is an ex-army man had purchased two pieces of land admeasuring 1.90 acres each by two registered sale deeds. In the year 2002 the private-respondents immediately filed pre-emption applications before the D.C.L.R., Kaimur at Bhabhua. The pre-emption applications of the private- respondents were dismissed. They preferred appeal before the Collector, Bhabhua. Their appeals were allowed and, pursuant to the orders of the Collector in appeal the D.C.L.R., Bhabhua executed sale deeds in favour of the private-respondents as against the order of the - 2 - Collector. The petitioner preferred Revision Application Case No.102 of 2006 before the Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, assailing the order of the Collector, Bhabhua and allowing the per-emption application. In those proceedings before the Board of Revenue the private- respondents were noticed and subsequently they appeared as well. In the meantime, the private-respondents filed revision applications being Consolidation Revision Case Nos.245 of 2009 and 246 of 2009 before the Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna for a direction to the authorities to record the names of the private-respondents in the revenue records, pursuant to the sale deed as executed by the D.C.L.R., pursuant to orders of the Collector allowing their per- emption application. The Director of Consolidation, Bihar without noticing the fact that the per-emption order as granted by the Collector in appeal had already been stayed by the Board of Revenue by order dated 09.12.2009 has virtually by the impugned order dated 14.06.2010 allowed the enforcement of the said order. This is the grievance of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the private-respondents is unable to challenge this factual situation. Having heard the parties, in my view, it is elementary that once the order of the Collector in appeal allowing the per-emption of the private-respondents had been stayed by the Board of Revenue by order dated 09.12.2009, the right of the per-emptor stood in abeyance and if that be so then the Director Consolidation had no business to try and enforce the same because the private-respondents’ - 3 - solitary claim was based upon the order of the Collector allowing his per-emption claim. In that view of the matter, the order dated 14.06.2010 passed by the Director Consolidation, Bihar, Patna in Consolidation Revision Case Nos.245 of 2009 & 246 of 2009 is set aside. The revision applications would be kept pending, subject to the final result of the Case No.102 of 2006 as pending before the Board of Revenue where private-respondents after issuance of notice have appeared. It is expected that the learned Additional Member Board of Revenue would take steps to dispose of the matter of per-emption at an early date. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)