IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.400 of 2009 1. GUJAR SAH 2. Kashi Nath Sah, Both are sons of Late Sukhan Sah. 3. Mohan Sah 4. Sohan Sah 5. Parohan Sah, All are sons of Late Chirkut Sah, residents of Gopi Dhanwat, P.S. Saraiya, District Muzaffarpur. ……………………Writ petitioners…… Appellants. Versus 1. ADDL.MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, Bihar, Patnaa. 2. The Additional Collector, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (West), Muzaffarpur. 4. Ram Pravesh Singh son of Late Kameshwar Singh, resident of village Yogi Dhanwat, P.O. Gidha, P.S. Saraiya, District Muzaffarpur. 5. Abhay Singh 6. Nirbhay Singh both sons of deceased Rash Bihari Singh 7. Vijay Singh 8. Ajay Singh, both sons of deceased Suraj Singh, All resident of village Pokhraira, P.S. Gidhna, P.S. Saraiya, District Muzaffarpur. ……………………..Respondents……. Respondents. with LPA No.399 of 2009 1. GUJAR SAH 2. Kashi Nath Sah, Both sons of late Sukan Sah 3. Mohan Sah 4. Sohan Sah 5. Parohan Sah. All sons of late Chirkut Sah. All are resident of Gopi Dhanwat, P.S. Saraiya, District Muzaffarpur. ………………Writ petitioners….. Appellants. Versus 1. ADDL.MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, Bihar, Patna. 2. Additional Collector, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Muzaffarpur. 4. Ram Parvesh Singh, son of late Kameshwar Singh, resident of village Gopi Dhanwat, P.O. Gidha, P.S. Saraiya, District Muzaffarpur. 5. Abhay Singh 6. Nirbhay Singh, both sons of deceased Rash Bihari Singh, resident of village Pokharaira, P.O. Gidua, P.S. Saraiya, District Muzaffarpur. 7. Vijay Singh 8. Ajay Singh, both sons of deceased Suraj Singh, residents of village Pokharaira, P.O. Gidua, P.S. Saraiya, District Muzaffarpur. 2 ……………………..Respondents…. Respondents. ----------- For the Appellants:- Mr. Prabhash Ranjan Thakur & Mr. Deepak Dayal, Adv. For the Respondents:- Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, Advocate. …………… 14 23.02.2011 Both these appeals arise out of the order dated 14.5.2007 passed in C.W.J. C. Nos. 7660 of 1988 and 7659 of 1988. In these appeals claim of the appellants-writ petitioners in C.W.J.C. No.7659 of 1998 is that the authorities ought not to have allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.4 allowing his claim of being an adjoining raiyat and the co-sharer against 44 decimals of land purchased by the petitioners from the original land owner in respect of nine plots bearing nos. 287, 311, 315, 318, 322, 1087, 1177, 1185 and 1215 appertaining to Khata No.149 and in C.W.J.C. No.7660 of 1988 the claim of the writ petitioners is with regard 42 decimals of land of plot nos. 1096, 1122, 1105, 1287, 1211, 1213, 1180, 1197 and 1190 being part of Khata no.150 in village Gopi Dhanwant, Police Station Saraiya, District Muzaffarpur. The fact of the case is that respondent no.4 filed two petitions claiming right of pre-emption under section 16 (3) of the Act of 1961, whereby, he claimed right of pre-emption in respect of the lands transferred under the sale deeds, dated 1.5.1981 and 7.11.1981 executed by Jewar Devi and Rampari kuer respectively, in favour of the petitioners and respondent no.4 claimed pre-emption on the ground of being adjoining raiyat, as well as, co-sharer of the plots, transferred under the disputed sale deeds by filing Land Ceiling Case nos. 9 and 10 of 1982. The 3 Deputy Collector, Land Reforms by his order dated 17.1.1983 rejected both the claims for pre-emption under section 16 (3) of the Act of 1961. Thereafter, respondent no.4 filed an appeal bearing Appeal Nos. 45/14 Ceiling of 1982-83/ 1985-86 as well as appeal bearing Appeal No. 44/13 Ceiling of 1982-83/ 1985-86, before the Additional Collector, Muzaffarpur and the same was allowed by the Additional Collector vide order dated 5.11.1985. Being aggrieved by the said order the present writ petitioner filed revision application being Revision Case nos. 552 of 1985 and 551 of 1985 respectively before the Board of Revenue, Bihar which was dismissed. Hence the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge having gone into the merits of the case and after examining the provisions of law under section 16 of the Act of 1961 found that the authorities have concurrently held that respondent no.4 is a adjoining raiyat and co-sharer and the direction given by the authorities cannot be disturbed by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued before us that respondent no.4 is neither adjoining raiyat nor a co-sharer and the authorities ought not to have allowed the cases filed by him. Having perused the materials annexed with these appeals and the writ petitions, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was perfectly right in holding that such finding of fact cannot be disturbed by this Court in a writ petition 4 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)