IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8147 of 2004 YUGESHWAR MISHRA Son of Late Bechkun Mishra, resident of Village Basuara, P.S. Bishanpur Anchal Hayaghat, District- Darbhanga. ----------------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Patna. 3. The Additional Collector, Land Reforms/Ceiling Darbhanga, District-Darbhanga. 4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Darbhanga. 5. Sunita Devi Wife of Braj Kishore Mishra, Resident of Village Basuara, P.S. Bishanpur Anchal Hayaghat, District- Darbhanga. 6. Ramesh Mishra, Son of Late Hari Narayan Mishra, resident of village Basuara, P.S. Bishanpur Anchal Hayaghat District- Darbhanga. --------------------Respondents. -------------- 4. 15.11.2010 The pre-emption application was allowed initially by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Darbhanga. The respondents’ purchasers filed an appeal against the order of the D.C.L.R. which was allowed by the Collector. The matter went up to the Additional Member Board of Revenue, Patna which was also decided against the petitioner. The pre- emptor thus lost before all three authorities. I have perused the order of three authorities. It would appear from the order impugned that the Courts have noted the objection of the petitioner and the case of the respondents, and considered the report of the spot verification. The respondents’ case is that the petitioner and the respondents come from common ancestors. It is said that there has been no partition amongst them, but as a result of family arrangement they are cultivating the land in - 2 - accordance with their convenience. The petitioner obviously disputes this claim and submits that his name was recorded during the revisional survey, which has not been challenged. The respondents had filed a case which resulted in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., there was a compromise between the husband of the respondent vendor and between Ram Lakhan Mishra in which it has been stated that S.P. No. 1750 which lies on the East of the disputed land has been transferred by exchange in favour of the appellants father-in-law and accordingly, R.S. Khata is prepared in the name of respondent father, whereas the petitioner share is in C.S. Plot No. 2025 and khathiyan was also prepared in their name. Therefore the Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent is also in the boundary of the disputed plot and on the basis of the aforesaid findings has allowed the appeal of the respondent vendor and dismissed the appeal of the appellant-plaintiff. The Member Board of Revenue has also on the same ground upheld the order of the Additional Collector, Darbhanga passed in the appeal. This Court finds no reason to interfere with impugned orders. This writ application is accordingly dismissed. Anand Kr. (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)