IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14830 of 2007 DHARAM PRASAD GUPTA Son of Chirkut Sah resident of village and P.O.Baijaipur P.S Baijaipur Dist. Gopalganj Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna 3. The Collector of the Dist. Gopalganj 4. The Additional Collector, Gopalganj 5. The D.C.L.R, Land Reforms Hathua, Gopalganj 6. Braj Bhushan Mani Tripathi son of Rahubansh Mani Tripathi 7.Arvind Mani Tripathi son of Brij Bhushan Tripathi both resident of village + P.O. and P.S. Bijaipur Dist. Gopalganj (Bihar) 8. Dewta Nand Sah 9. Bishwanath Sah 10 Dinanath Sah sons of Radha Sah Resident of village Jokawa Bazar, P.O. Gurawalia Lal P.S. Turk Patti Dist. Kushinagar (U.P.) Respondents. ----------- 2 03.03.2009 Heard Mr Gulam Rabbani, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Rajesh Kant, learned Assistant counsel to learned Standing Counsel no. III (Ceiling). This writ petition is directed against the order dated 1.3.2006 (Annexure 5), passed by respondent no.2, in purported exercise of powers under section 32 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land)Act,1961 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), whereby he has rejected the revision application preferred by the petitioner. It arises out of a proceeding under section 16(3) of the Act. The petitioner is the pre-emptor. Respondents no.1 to 5 have placed on record their counter affidavit and have supported the impugned order. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Lands in question were alienated by a registered deed of absolute sale dated 8.1.1990, by respondents no.8 to 10, in favour of respondents no. 6 and - 2 - 7. It is with respect to the lands appertaining to khata no. 84, plot no.121, area 2 1/ 3, in Mauza Bijaipur, and appertaining to khata no. 120, plot no. 419, area 0.3-10, in Mauza Marar. The petitioner filed an application under section 16(3) of the Act claiming right of pre- emption with respect to the vended plot. 3. The petitioner’s case is that he is co-sharer, as well as adjoining raiyat with respect to the vended plot. The case of the purchasers is that neither they nor the petitioner, are co-sharers or adjoining raiytas. On a consideration of materials on record, respondent no.5 allowed the pre-emption application by his order dated 16.11.2000 (Annexure 1), passed in Case no.32/1989-90/ 19/2000-01 (Dharam Prasad Gupta vs. Brijbhushan Mani Tripathi &others), and the claim for pre-emption was upheld. Aggrieved by this order, the purchasers preferred appeal which was allowed by order dated 28.4.2005 (Annexure 4), passed by respondent no.4, in Land Appeal Case no.2/2003-04/ 9/2005-06 (Brij Bhushan Mani Tripathi & others vs. Dharam Prasad Gupta & others), the order of the learned first authority was set aside and the petitioner’ pre-emption application was rejected. The learned appellate authority held that the pre-emptor is neither co-sharer nor adjoining raiyat with respect to the vended plot. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the petitioner preferred revision application which has been rejected by the impugned order on the same ground. It is thus evident that it is concluded by concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned appellate authority as well as learned revisional authority, that the petitioner is neither co-share nor - 3 - adjoining raiyat with respect to the plot .In that view of the matter, the pre-emption application is bound to fail. The impugned order can not be faulted. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. (S.K.Katriar, J) shahid