IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.7122 OF 2003 DEVENDRA OJHA, SON OF LATE HARIDWAR OJHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAGDISHPUR @ SRIASIYA, POLICE STATION BARURAJ, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR ……………………………………………………….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COLLECTOR, MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, WEST MUZAFFARPUR, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR 5. AMRESH THAKUR, SON OF LATE BISHWANATH THAKUR 6. VIRESH THAKUR, SON OF LATE BISHWANATH THAKUR 7. AKHILESH THAKUR, SON OF LATE BISHWANATH THAKUR 5 TO 7 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHUSHI, POLICE STATION BARURAJ, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR 8. NILA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE BISHWANATH THAKUR, WIFE OF LAL SARAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SUBEIA, POLICE STATION SAHEBGANJ, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR 9. VEENA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE BISHWANATH THAKUR, WIFE OF LATE ARBIND KUMAR THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POLICE STATION MADHOPUR, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR 10. SRI RAM PRAVESH THAKUR, SON OF LATE ANIRUDH THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHUSHI, POLICE STATION CHOURGHATTA, POLICE STATION BARURAJ, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR …………………………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS ********* 7 30/08/2010 Heard the parties. The petitioner is the purchaser by virtue of two sale deeds dated 16.03.1992. The father of respondents 5 to 9 (brother of the original vendor) and his wife filed an application under Section 16 (3) which was allowed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, holding that the respondent-pre-emptor was a co-sharer of the vendor, the respondent no. 10. The pre-emption application filed on behalf of the respondent is on the record as Annexure-2. On 2 perusal of the Schedule-I, it would appear that the pre- emptor were not boundary raiyats of the lands in question, in fact they have shown themselves to be the boundary raiyats of plot nos. 1786, 2323 and 2389 of Khata No. 131. It has also been stated in the pre-emption application that Opposite Party No. 2 and the pre-emptor are separate in mess, business and the cultivation is separate only for the sake of convenience without partition by metes and bounds. I find that this statement is contradictory and subject to the fact that evidence should be led on behalf of the parties claiming to be co- sharer to substantiate his case. In case, he was a co- sharer, then he would be a boundary raiyat in all the plots concerned, or he could have shown that the plots were of a large area and only part of the plots were sold or that he could have stated specifically the plots which were cultivated by him and the plots cultivated by respondent no. 10 for the sake of convenience. The fact that he is recorded as a boundary raiyat in some of the plots, does not substantiate the claim of being a co- sharer. On the mere perusal of Annexure-2, it would appear that the pre-emptor is only a boundary raiyat with respect to three plots. Partial pre-emption is not permissible. The person claiming the right of pre-emption must be a boundary raiyat in all the plots or has to say 3 that he is a co-sharer of each and every plot. I find that respondents 5 to 9 have not been able to make out a case that they are boundary raiyats or that they are co- sharers and have a share in each and every plots of land, sold to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that the order dated 15.02.2003 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar holding that father and mother of respondents 5 to 9 are co-sharers is not sustainable in the facts of the case. In the result, the impugned order dated 15.02.2003 (Annexure-6) and the order dated 30.11.1992 (Annexure-4) are quashed and this writ application is accordingly allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )