CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.898 OF 1990 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. … 1. Anurag Choudhary, son of Bhoj Choudhary, 2. Brahma Choudhary, son of Gunraj Choudhary, 3. Sitaram Choudhary, son of Misri Choudhary, 4. Ramchandra Choudhary, son of Misri Choudhary, all of village Harbansha, PS Gopalganj, District Gopalganj – Petitioners. vs. 1. The Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Collector, Gopalganj. 3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Gopalganj. 4. Bankey Prasad Yadav, son of Ramkishun Prasad Yadav, 5. Mossomat Kalsia Devi, wife of Fuleshwar Choudhary, 6. Yogendra Choudhary, son of Fuleshwar Choudhary, 7. Minister Choudhary, son of Fuleshwar Choudhary, 8. Daroga Choudhary, son of Fuleshwar Choudhary, 9. Srimati Fekni Devi, daughter of Fuleshwar Choudhary, 10. Srimati Nemia Devi, daughter of Fuleshwar Choudhary, all residents of village Harbansha, PS and District Gopalganj – Respondents. … For The Petitioner : None. For The State : Mr. Gajendra Nath Ojha, A.C. to G.A. II. For respondents 4 and 11 : Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Advocate. … P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S. A. Khan,J. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 9.1.1990 contained in Anneuxre 1 passed by the Board of Revenue rejecting the revision application filed on behalf of the petitioners and the order, dated 5.8.1989 (Annexure 2) passed by the Collector, Gopalganj in Land Ceiling Case No. 16(3) 2/1986. 2. The petitioners are the preemptors. 3. The facts of the case are that five sale deeds were executed by Bankey Prasad Yadav, respondent no.4 in favour of respondents 5 to 10 with respect to plot no. 655, for a sum of 2 Rs.25,000/- on 23.1.1985 the registration of which was completed on 19.3.1985. Subsequently respondent no.4 executed six sale deeds in favour of respondent no.11 with respect to the same plot i.e. plot no. 655 for a consideration of Rs.30,000/-. The registration was completed on 14.6.1985. The petitioners filed an application for preemption with respect to the first sale deed, dated 23.1.1985 on 19.8.1985. The petitioners claim to be boundary raiyat of plot no. 655 by virtue of having a piece of land on the western boundary of plot no. 655 which is numbered as plot no. 653 (part) and as such they have filed the preemption application. 4. The case of the respondents, on the other hand is that respondent no.4, the original vendee is also a boundary raiyat having a piece of land of plot no. 653 on the western boundary of the lands purchased. It is also the case of the respondents that the application filed by the petitioners to add respondent no. 11 as a party in the preemption application was time barred. It is stated that the petitioners ought to have challenged the sale deeds executed on 7.5.1985 and at least deposited the additional amount as the sale deeds were for a higher sum of consideration amount being Rs. 30,000/-. 5. Apart from all these facts stated aforesaid, two facts are sufficient for deciding this case. Firstly is the fact that respondent no.4, the purchaser, by virtue of being a boundary raiyat of the land, which had been purchased by him vide the sale deed, dated 23.1.1985 is sufficient reason to defeat the provisions of section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of 3 Surplus Land) Act. The other point which goes against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents is that by virtue of the five sale deeds, the purchaser, respondent no.4 would also acquire the status of being a boundary raiyat of the land which is under dispute and on this ground also the respondent would succeed in his claim against the petitioners. This principle would also apply to the case of respondent no.11 who would become a boundary raiyat of the lands which have been purchased by virtue of the six sale deeds executed by respondent no.4. This aspect of the matter has been decided by a judgment of this court in the case of Ram Roop Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, 1987 PLJR 455 (DB). In view of the aforesaid facts I find no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed. Patna High Court, August 5, 2010, NAFR / haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)