IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13415 of 2003 SMT.KANTI DEVI, WIDOW OF LATE BACHCHA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHARAMPUR, P.S. VAISHALI, DISTRICT VAISHALI, AT PRESENT RESIDING IN VILLAGE GOPALPUR RAJARAM, P.S. SAKRA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. ------ PETITIONER Versus 1. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS (D.C.L.R.), MUZAFFARPUR (EAST), DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR (THE COLLECTOR UNDER THE ACT); 4. SRI RAM NARESH SINGH, SON OF KUBAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GOPALPUR RAJARAM, P.O. RAJAPAKAR, P.S. SAKRA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR (PRE-EMPTOR) 5. SRI BASHISTHA SINGH, SON OF LATE NAULAKH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GOPALPUR RAJARAM, P.O. RAJAPAKAR, P.S. SAKRA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR (VENDOR) 6. SRI SATRUGHAN PD. SINGH 7. SRI RAMESH PD. SINGH BOTH (RESPONDENT NOS. 6 AND 7) SONS OF LATE SHIV SHARAN SINGH BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE GOPALPUR RAJARAM, P.O. RAJAPAKAR, P.S. SAKRA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR (PURCHASERS-CUM-DONERS) ----- RESPONDENTS ----------- 5 30.8.2010 Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are purchasers of the land in question from respondent no. 5. Respondent No. 4 filed an application for pre-emption which was allowed by the D.C.L.R., Muzaffarpur (East). The pre-emption application was filed on 5.3.1990. On the same day, respondent nos. 6 and 7 transferred the land to the petitioner by way of a deed of gift. All three Courts allowed the pre-emption application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of Annexure-1 which is the map of the land which has been sold appertains to Plot No. 1324, it would be apparent that the pre-emptor is not a boundary raiyat on the East of the land as claimed by him as between the vended land and the land of the pre-emptor measuring 1 Katha 10 Dhurs of Plot No. 1324, is 2 another piece of land measuring 1 Katha 7 Dhurs also appertaining to Plot No. 1324 which belongs to Upendra Singh and Vishwanath Singh. Thus the pre-emption application has been allowed by holding that the pre-emptor is a boundary raiyat to the vended plot, having his land on Plot No. 1326. In order to substantiate this fact, it is said that a photo copy of the sale deed was produced before the D.C.L.R. The petitioner took objection in the appeal filed before the Collector which has not been considered either by the Collector or by the Member, Board of Revenue. The objection taken by the petitioner is that the Chak No. 1326 does not belong to the applicant because the land is not in his possession, although the petitioner has not been able to state as to how and why the respondent was not in possession of Plot No. 1326. It appears that the petitioner had not filed any application that an enquiry should be made with respect to the actual position of Plot No. 1326, nor has the petitioner disclosed the name of the person who holds possession of Chak No. 1326. The point raised on behalf of the petitioner is pretty vague and unsubstantiated by any material. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. All three orders against the petitioner appear to be backed by valid reasons. The petitioner claims that the land was transferred on the same day by way of deed of gift will not help him as it is well settled law that a transfer made before the date of filing the pre- 3 emption application may be taken into account for the purpose of defeating the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act. In the present case facts reveal that gift was executed on the same day as the pre-emption application was filed, which cannot be considered a good ground for defeating the pre-emption application. This application is accordingly dismissed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)