IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.181 of 2008 TETRI DEVI &ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Sinha, Advocate ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 6th August, 2008. We heard Mr. Raghib Ahsan, senior counsel for the appellants. 2. The Board of Revenue, inter alia, referred to the two decisions of this court in the case of Ganesh Prasad Versus Jugeshwar Tewari and ors. (1969 PLJR 284) and in the case of Sona Devi and ors. Vs. Paras Nath Singh and ors. ( 1989 PLJR 301) and based on that held that the original application did not disclose either the nature of the land or its classification. More importantly, the Board of Revenue referred to the recitals of the sale deeds and noticed that the recitals of the sale deed reveals that the offer was first made by the vendor to each of the family members and when they did not show the willingness to purchase, the subject land was sold by respondent no. 7 to respondent nos. 5 and 6. 3. The present appellants aggrieved by the order of the Board of Revenue, filed the writ application which has been dismissed - 2 - by the Single Judge on 15th January, 2008. It is from this decision that the present letters patent appeal has been preferred. 4. The senior counsel for the appellants would submit that it is not necessary to mention the nature or classification of land in Form- LCXIII. In any case, the purchaser has to show prejudice if nature or classification of land is not mentioned. Reliance is placed upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Khokhari Devi and ors. Vs. The Addl. Member, Board of Revenue & ors. 1987 PLJR 967 but the Single Judge, in ignorance of the aforesaid decisions, relied upon a Single Bench decision in the case of Sona Devi and ors. (1989 PLJR 301) and another in the case of Ganesh Prasad Vs. Jugeshwar Tewari and ors. (1969 PLJR 284) and non suited the petitioners, which is apparently erroneous. 5. It is true that in the case of Khokhari Devi (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that if substantial/sufficient information is supplied in the application under section 16(3) of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (for short ‘ the Act of 1961’), such application cannot be thrown out merely because the nature or classification of the land is not mentioned unless prejudice is shown by the purchaser. To that extent, the view of the Single Judge may not be correct. However, that does not improve the case of the appellants. As we have already noticed above, the Board of Revenue, based on the recitals in the sale deeds, categorically recorded a finding that the offer was first made by - 3 - the vendor to each of the family members but they did not agree to purchase and only purchasers came forward and, accordingly, sale was effected. The senior counsel has not challenged the correctness of this finding. This clearly disentitles the appellant no. 1 from claiming any right of preemption under section 16(3) of the Act of 1961. So far as appellant nos. 2 to 6 are concerned, they are admittedly the donees of the part of the land by virtue of the gift deed of the year 1982 i.e. after the appointed date. By no stretch of imagination, they become co- sharers entitling them to invoke section 16(3) of the Act of 1961. 6. Seen thus, the application under section 16(3) of the Act of 1961 cannot be said to have been wrongly rejected. 7. L.P.A. does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Anil/