IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.752 of 2008 Dina Nath Pathak, S/O Nand Lal Pathak, resident of Village – Baskatia, P.O. and P.S. – Rohtas, Distt- Rohtas ……..Pre-emptor-Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, 3. The Additional Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram, 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Dehri, District – Rohtas 5. Sheikh Md. Mazharul Haque, S/o Sheikh Md. Waigul Haque, Resident of Mohalla – Jakhi, Bigha, P.O. – Dalmianagar, P.S. – Dehri, District – Rohtas 6. Binda Devi W/o Rajendra Sah, resident of Villate Baskatia, P.O. and P.S. Rohtas, District – Rohtas ……… Respondents - Respondents ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Keshav Shrivastava, Senior Advocate Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad, Advocate. -------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --------- Dated, the 16th October, 2008. We heard Mr. Keshav Shrivastava, senior counsel for quite some time and perused the available material and also the impugned order. 2. The Single Judge considered the matter thus: “…….It is evident therefrom that the sale deeds in question were executed on 22.5.1996 whereafter pre- emption cases were filed on 19.11.1997 and after appearance of the vendee, Respondent No. 6 in the pre- emption case on 1.12.1997, Title Suit Nos. 523 and 529 of 1997 filed on 15.12.1997 by Khursida Khatun who was neither the transferor nor the transferee in the sale deed absolutely unconnected with the sale transaction dated 22.5.1996 as also not a party in the pre-emption case it 2 was her choice to either come to the revenue court or approach the Civil Court for ventilation of her grievances about the sale deeds and if she has chosen to approach the Civil Court and succeeded there and the sale deeds have been set aside then this Court cannot take any exception for such ventilation of her grievance before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction even prior to the decision of the lis by the Collector under the Act. The sale deeds in question on the basis of which the pre-emption cases were filed itself stood set aside by a competent authority constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 the pre-emption cases had to be dismissed and was rightly dismissed by the Collector under the Act. The appellate authority should not have interfered with the same but the order passed by the appellate authority having been set aside by the revisional authority. I do not see any illegality in the order passed by the Collector under the Act as also by the Member, Board of Revenue and the three writ applications are, accordingly, dismissed.” 3. In our view, consideration of the matter by the Single Judge is proper justifying no interference by us in the appeal. 4. L.P.A. is dismissed in limine. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/