IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.7738 of 2008 Md. Sanauar, son of Amiruddin, resident of village and Post Office Obra, P.S. Obra, district Aurangabad Bihar .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Aurangabad, P.S. and district Aurangabad 2. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya 3. The Collector, Aurangabad, P.S. and District Aurangabad 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Daud Nagar, P.S. Daug Nagar, district Aurangabad 5. Gulam Pir, son of late Md. Ilias, resident of village, Post Office and Police Station Obra, district Aurangabad 6. Bhola Paswan, son of late Tanu Paswan, resident of village Post Office and Police Station Obra, district Aurangabad .. Respondents **** /3/ 21.04.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is the preemptor. He has lost his case before all three Courts. Prayer of the petitioner is for quashing orders, dated 26.05.2006, passed in Land Ceiling Case No. 11 of 2004-2005, order, dated 27.02.2007, passed in Ceiling Appeal No. 92 of 2006 and order, dated 10.01.2008, passed in Ceiling Revision Case No. 40 of 2007 respectively. Finding recorded by all three Courts is that in the western boundary of the vended land, in the sale deed Amiruddin’s, father of the petitioner/preemptor has been - 2 - shown. The sale deed was purchased by Amiruddin in the year 1977 in the name of his two minor sons, Md. Sanauar and Md. Murtaza. Since, there is no partition in the family, filing of preemption application only by Md. Sanauar is not maintainable and secondly, since there is no partition, as such, Md. Sanauar can not claim to be in possession of same part of the adjacent, which is in the boundary of the vended land. Another finding, which has been recorded by the Courts below, is that the area of purchased land is 06.1/4 decimals, which is a very small area and has been purchased for residential purposes. In a case of any purchase, which is not for agriculture use, but, for residential purposes, application for preemption is not maintainable. 3. Considering the concurrent finding of fact recorded by all three Courts and also that right of preemption is a weak right, which can be and should be allowed only when it is very strong, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. 4. This application is dismissed. Cp:2/S.A. ( Mridula Mishra, J.)