IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16028 of 2004 BABOO PRASAD YADAV, son of Late Manchit Yadav …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REVENUE, DARBHANGA 3. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, LAND CEILING DARBHANGA 4. ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 5. YOGESHWAR YADAV, SON OF LATE SATTAN YADAV 6. RAJENDRA YADAV, SON OF LATE BANKOO YADAV 7. RAM KHELAWAN YADAV SON OF LATE PALLO YADAV 8. PUNIT RAI, SON OF LATE KUSHESHWAR RAI 9. MOST. NIRA WIFE OF LATE BINIT ROY 10. MANOJ KUMAR, SON OF LATE RAM CHANDRA RAI 11. RAM CHANDRA YADAV, SON OF AWADH YADAV 12. DILIP KUMAR YADAV, SON OF RAM KHELAWAN YADAV 13. DAROGI YADAV, SON OF THAKKO YADAV …RESPONDENTS For the petitioner :None For the State :Mr. Pawan Kumar Mishra, AC to GP 22 ----------- 06. 03.02.2011 Present application has been filed questioning the sustainability of the resolution dated 18.08.2004, passed by Respondent-Additional Member, Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 40 of 2003, whereby the claim of pre-emption laid by the petitioner was rejected. It appears that the petitioner filed a proceeding before Respondent-D.C.L.R. claiming pre-emption in respect of the land purchased by respondent no.5 on 30.08.2000. It further appears that the purchaser by reason of three separate sale deeds dated 20.09.2000 subsequently transferred those lands to other purchasers. Thereafter, ceiling proceeding was filed on 28.10.2000. Courts below have thus 2 take a view that subsequent purchasers have not been impleaded in the proceeding and, as such, the land ceiling proceeding was not maintainable. Respondent-Board of Revenue has found as under in paragraphs 4 and 5: 4. Before going into the merits of the case, it may be noted that the petitioner has admitted that the subsequent purchasers have not been made parties to the pre-emption case filed by him which was admittedly filed after the original purchaser transferred the whole land in question to third parties by three registered sale deeds. Further more, it also appears from the records that there was no plea regarding the subsequent transfers being sham and Farzi taken by the petitioner. In this view of the matter the second transferees get good title over land in question and thus there can be no question of their title being defeated by a subsequent application filed by the pre-emptor as the second transferees could not be presumed to have any knowledge of an application which might have been filed in future. Hence an order of pre-emption against subsequent transferees on an application filed for pre- emption against the first transferee can not be made as has been held in Ram Roop Yadav Versus Additional Member 1984 PLJR 128. 5. Moreover, the pre-emption is a weak right and it can be defeated even by any legitimate technical point of law. Thus there appears no illegality in the impugned orders rejecting the pre-emption application of the petitioner on preliminary point. As such it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case. Hence this revision is dismissed and the orders impugned are affirmed. In view of aforesaid findings recorded by revisional court, this Court does not find any merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )