LETTERS PATIENT APPEAL No.649 OF 2003 *** Against the order dated 09.06.2003 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No.310 of 2003 *** Ashok Kumar Singh, son of Late Ram Jiwan Singh Resident of RUDAULI, Bachhwara, Distt- Begusarai.......................Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, Patna. 3. District Magistrate,-cum-Collector, Begusarai. 4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Teghra, District-Begusarai 5. Smt. Nirmala Devi, W/o Sri Narayan Yadav, resident of village – Rudauli, iP.S. Bachhhwara, Pargana- Naipur, District – Begusarai. 6. Boyelal Singh, son of Late Ramchandra Singh resident of Rudauli, P.S. Bachhwara, District – Khagaria........Respondents/Respondents *** For the Appellant: M/s Shri Prakash Srivastava, Anil Kumar & Rajeev Ranjan, Advocates For the State : Mr. R.C. Thakur, S.C.IV (Ceiling) Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, J.C. to S.C.IX (Ceiling) *** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH *** S.K.Katriar, J. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of CWJC No. 310 of 2003 (Ashok Kumar Singh Versus The State of Bihar & ors.), passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, the order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, has been upheld, whereby present appellant’s claim of right of pre-emption has been rejected. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. It arises out of an application under Section 16 (3) of the Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & 2 Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The appellant is the pre- emptor, respondent no.6 herein is the vendor, and respondent no.5 herein is the vendee. Respondent no.6 conveyed right, title and interest of khesra nos. 1165 and 1166, which are equivalent to survey plot nos. 224 and 225, appertaining to khata no.262, covering an area of 1 bigha of land, in favour of respondent no.5. A sale deed was executed on 22.11.1993, and was registered on 04.09.1995. The appellant herein filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Act claiming right of pre-emption with respect to the land in question on the basis of being a co-sharer as well as an adjoining raiyat. During the pendency of the pre-emption application, respondent no.5, the purchaser, in his turn, executed sale deed in favour of one Tilak Sharma (erroneously mentioned as ‘Tilak Sao’ at some places), whereby he conveyed 2 katha and 10 dhurs of the aforesaid land. The sale deed was executed on 21.02.1995, and was registered on 23.10.1997. The pre-emption application was allowed by the learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, by order dated 17.09.1997, whereby he held that the applicant is a co-sharer as well as an adjoining raiyat with respect to 1 bigha of land and, therefore, allowed the claim for pre-emption. Respondent no.5 preferred appeal which was rejected by order dated 26.12.2000, passed by the learned Additional Collector. Respondent no.5 filed a revision application before the learned Member, Board of 3 Revenue, which was allowed by order dated 11.12.2002, the order of the appellate authority was set aside, and the pre-emption application was rejected on the ground that Tilak Sharma had not been impleaded as a party respondent at any stage. The writ petition at the instance of the present appellant (pre-emptor) has been dismissed by the impugned order, and the order of the learned revisional authority has been upheld on similar grounds. Hence this appeal at the instance of the pre-emptor. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. We must at the outset state that respondent no.5 has entered appearance through counsel, but learned counsel has not appeared before us to oppose the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he was not aware of execution of the sale deed in favour of Tilak Sharma before he filed pre-emption application and was, therefore, not impleaded as a party respondent. He submits that, in any view of the matter, the sale deed executed in favour of Tilak Sharma is confined to 2 katha and 10 dhurs of land. He submits that he will be satisfied if the pre-emption application is allowed with respect to the balance of the land. We see no objection to the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is allowed in so far as the appellant’s claim for pre-emption with respect to 1 bigha of land minus 2 katha and 10 dhurs in favour of Tilak Sharma. 5. In the result, this appeal is allowed. We partially modify the order of the learned Single Judge 4 dated 09.06.2003, passed in CWJC No.310 of 2003. The claim for pre-emption is allowed with respect to the land in question except 2 katha and 10 dhurs, the right, title and interest of which has allegedly been conveyed to Tilak Sharma. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. (Sudhir Kumar Katriar, J.) (Jayanandan Singh, J.) Patna High Court, Patna The 27th July, 2010 N.A.F.R. (B.T.)