IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13483 of 2005 ASHARFI RAI SON OF JULUM RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- TERASIA, P.S. GANGA BRIDGE, DISTRICT VAISHALI …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR PATNA 3. THE ADDITIOANL COLLECTOR, SARAN AT CHAPRA 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS SONEPUR, SARAN …RESPONDENTS 1ST SET 5. BIJENDRA RAI SON OF LATE RAM AYODHYA RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE –SABALPUR TERASIA, P.S. GANGA BRIDBGE, DIST. VAISHALI 6. KITABLAL RAI SON OF LATE RAM AYODHYA RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SABALPUR P.S. GANGA BRIDGE, DIST. VAISHALI …RESPONDENTS 2ND SET ----------- 03. 20.04.2011 Petitioner is aggrieved by Resolution dated 21.12.2004 (Annexure-3), passed by Respondent-Board of Revenue, Bihar, whereby the revision application being Case No. 196 of 2003 (Asarfi Rai vs. Bijendra Rai & Ors.) has been considered and rejected. Ten kathas of land was conveyed by respondent no.6 in favour of the writ petitioner by a registered sale deed. The pre-emptor(respondent no.5) finding himself to be adjoining raiyat, lodged an application seeking his right of pre- emption u/s 16(3) of the Land Ceiling Act which was considered and rejected. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, an appeal being Appeal No. 30 of 2001 was preferred by the pre- emptor which was allowed by order dated 16.08.2003 (Annexure-2). Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred revision application which was considered and dismissed concluding as under in paragraph 3: 2 “From perusal of records it appears that admittedly the vendee is neither co-sharer nor adjoining raiyat of the land in question. The original authority dismissed the pre-emptor’s claim on the ground that since other persons are also the adjoining raiyat of the land in question, therefore the pre-emptor’s claim as such has no meaning. Further, the original authority also held without any evidence that the vendee is a landless person, disregarding the fact that the pre-emptor has produced a copy of khatiyan showing that the father of the vendee is already holding 1 Bigha 10 kathas of land. Thus the conclusion of the original authority appears to be not supported by evidence and hence not tenable in law. Thus the order of the original authority is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside as has been done by the appellate authority. In the result this revision is dismissed.” On going through the writ petition including the appellate order, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion(s) arrived at by the revisional court which is the final court of fact. No case for invocation of extra- ordinary writ jurisdiction has been made out. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )