IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.743 of 2008 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15148 of 2006 =================================================== 1. Brahmadeo Singh @ Brahma Singh 2. Shri Bhagwan Singh Both are sons of late Kisundeo Singh, Resident of village-Shyampur, P.O. Bhanta Pokhar, Pargana-Pachlakh, Police Station-Siwan Mufassil, District-Siwan .... .... Appellants Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna 3. District Collector, Siwan 4. Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Siwan 5. Nagendra Singh 6. Nand Lal Singh 7. Achhelal Singh @ Achhelal Prasad Singh respondent nos. 5 to 7 are sons of Sri Radha Kisun singh, resident of village-Bhanta Pokhar, P.S. Siwan Mufassil, District-Siwan 8. Mostt. Radhika Kuer, wife of late Ram Janak Singh 9. Mostt. Usha Devi, wife of Late Manoj Singh 10. Piyush Ranjan @ Gunjan Kumar Singh (Minor) son of late Manoj Kumar Singh represented through mother Mostt Usha devi respondent nos. 8 to 10 are resident of village- bandpali, P.S.-Ziradei, Ditrict-Siwan .... .... Respondent/s =================================================== 6 15-10-2011 The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.08.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15148 of 2006 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by dismissing the claim of non-official respondents for pre-emption under Sub-Section (3) of Section 16 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. 2 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that it is an agricultural land and even though he has succeeded before the lower authority, the Collector has refused to entertain his plea on the ground that on his personal instruction he could find that the land is situated in densely populated area near the market area and also it is very near from the State Highway. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has also contended that the opinion arrived at by the Collector cannot be a basis for rejecting the application for the pre-emption as the pre-emption is statutory right as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Hiralal Chauhan vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2004 (2) PLJR 339. The learned counsel emphatically argued that the entries in the revenue record would go to show that it is an agricultural land and the vendor who sold the land to the respondent should have taken the prior permission from the concern authorities before he preferred the conversion to change the said land from agricultural to non-agricultural. Per contra, learned counsel appearing 3 on behalf of the unofficial respondents has contended that it is not a fact that it is an agricultural land and the entries evident from the records of 1999 cannot be a basis after long lapse of time. Learned counsel has further argued that the order of the learned Single Judge should not be interfered with in view of the fact that several disputed question of facts would arise in the matter with regard to the nature of land. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the matter can be remanded back to respondent no.3, District Collector, Siwan. Accordingly, we remand the matter back to the District Collector, Siwan to pass a fresh order with regard to the nature of land after having heard both the parties within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the above observation, the order of learned Single Judge is modified and the L.P.A. is disposed of. ASHWINI/- (T. Meena Kumari, J) (Vikash Jain, J)