IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2734 of 2007 Nand Kishore Singh, Son of Late Ram Narayan Singh, residernt of Villaage- Bairagi Tola, P.S. Phulwaria, District- Gopalganj ---- Pertitioner. Versus 1. The State fof Bihar 2. Additioanl Member, Sri C. Ashok Vardhan, Board of Revenue, Bihar. 3. Additional Collector, Gopalganj 4. Deputy Collector, Land Reform Hathua, Gopalganj. 5. Moti Lal Singh 6. Hira Lal Singh 7. Babul Lal Singh, all 5 to 7 are sons of late Dharm Nath Singh, resident of Village- Bairagi Tola, p.S. Phulwaria, District- Gopalganj (Vendee) 8. Srimati Dulari Devi wife of Ram Payau Singh resident of Village- Laxmipur, P.S. Phulwaria, District- Gopalganj (Vendor) --- Respondents. ------- 2. 16.1.2009 Heard Mr. S.K. Tiwary for the petitioner, and Mr. Krishna Chandra, learned Junior Counsel to Standing Counsel No.3(Ceiling). This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.11.2006 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, in Revision Case No. 168 of 2005( Nand Kishore Singh Vrs. Moti Lal Singh), in purported exercise of powers under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus land Act), 1961(hereinaftrer referred to as the Act), whereby he has affirmed the orders of the two authorities below him and has rejected the pre- emption application of the petitioner. It arises out of proceedings under section 16(3) of the Act and is with respect to Kheshra No. 1440, appertaining to Khata no. 105, covering an area of 2 Kathas 2 and 8 Dhurs, as well as Kheshra No. 1446, appertaining to the same Khata, covering an area of 3 Kathas 5 Dhurs, situate at Village Bairasi Tola, Police Station- Phulwaria, District- Gopalganj. Respondent no.8 alienated the lands in question in favour of respondent nos. 5 to 7 by registered deeds of absolute sale on 9.11.2001 and 12.11.2002. The petitioner filed his application under section 16(3) of the Act claiming pre-emption with respect to the ladns in question on the ground that he is a co-sharers of the vendee. The application was rejected on the ground that on the own admission of the petitioner, the purchasers were adjoining raiyats with respect to lands in question. The appeal preferred by the petitioner( the pre-emptor) was rejected on the same ground. The revision application at the instance of the petitioner( the pre-emptor) has also failed on the same ground. It appears to me on a perusal of the materials on record that the three authorities have consistently found that the purchasers are co-sharers with respect to the vended lands. In that view of the matter, the petitioner’s claim for pre- emption has been rejected. The impugned order can not be faulted. The writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)