IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20439 of 2010 SIYAMUNI DEVI W/O SRI BIJENDRA PRASAD SINGH ALIAS SANGAM ROY, R/O MADHUPUR, P.S. BIHTA, DISTRICT-PATNA. …………Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COLLECTOR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, DANAPUR. 4. SABITA DEVI W/O LATE RAM RAJ RAI, R/O VILLAGE MADHUPUR, P.S. BIHTA, DISTRICT-PATNA. ………..Respondents. ----------- 03 20.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 1. The matter arises out of a proceeding under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act. The petitioner is the purchaser. An application was filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 seeking right of pre-emption before the respondent-Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Danapur which was rejected. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2004 (Annexure-4), respondent no. 4 preferred appeal before the respondent-Collector. Respondent-Collector by a proceeding dated 13.03.2010 allowed the claim of pre-emption and set aside the order of the respondent-Deputy Collector Land Reforms negating the claim of pre-emption filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4. Same order has been impugned in this 2 application. 2. While assailing the appellate order dated 19.03.2010, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasonings assigned therein are perverse inasmuch as the authority under the Land Ceiling Act, cannot declare status of a person. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority has itself noticed the fact that respondent no. 4 (Sabita Devi) had already instituted a suit seeking declaration of title and possession in respect of the suit land in which the writ petitioner has been arrayed as defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner further criticized the order passed by the appellate court on the ground that the case law on which reliance has been placed to allow the appeal does not relate to the case of pre-emption as incorporated in the Bihar Land Ceiling Act. It is the stand of the petitioner that the case law referred to in the order relates to some other Act. 3. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that there is a forum available in law to the petitioner to assail the order dated 13.03.2010. He relies on Section 32 of the Act. Its thus submitted that there is 3 already a statutory forum available in law where the petitioner can agitate all these issues. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that revision may be barred by limitation. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioner must first approach the revisional Court for ventilation of her grievance(s). This Court permits the petitioner to file revision application before the concerned respondent-Commissioner within a period of five weeks from today. If such an application/revision is filed within the aforesaid time, the concerned respondent shall consider and dispose of the same on its merit. 6. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is further persuaded to observe that for five weeks from today, there shall be stay of the operation of order contained in Annexure-5. The petitioner shall thereafter be at liberty to seek interim relief, if any, before the Court hearing the revision application. Safik (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)