IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4837 OF 2007 SANWALIYA RAI @ SAWALIYA RAI SON OF MAN BHARAN RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DANDASPUR, P.O. PANDITPUR, P.S. JANTA BAZAR, DISTRICT SARAN --- --- --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SARAN, CHAPRA 4. THE D.C.L.R., CHAPRA SADAR, CHAPRA --- --- RESPONDENT 1ST SET 5. RAM JANAM RAI @ RAM JANAM SINGH, SON OF SUKHDEO RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DANDASPUR, P.O. PANDITPUR, P.S. JANTA BAZAR, DISTRICT SARAN ----- ---- RESPONDEDNT 2ND SET 6. DHARAM NATH MISHRA 7. KALPNATH MISHRA BOTH SONS OF BISHUNDEO MISHRA, RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MACHCHARGAWA (HATHIYA), P.S. JOGAPATTI, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN, AT PRESENT RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE DANDASPUR, P.S. JANTA BAZAR, P.O. PANDITPUR, DISTRICT SARAN. --- ---- RESPONDENTS 3RD SET ----------- 3. 23.1.2009 Heard Mr. Nagendra Rai for the petitioner, Mr. Rajnish Kant, learned assistant counsel to Standing Counsel no.3 (Ceiling) and Mr. Arun Kumar Rai for respondent no.5. It arises out of proceedings under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’ and is directed against the order dated 30.10.2006 (Annexure-7), passed by Additional Member, Board of 2 Revenue, Bihar, Patna, in Revision case no. 91/03 (Sawaliaya Rai vrs The State of Bihar and ors), whereby the revision application preferred by the present petitioner (purchaser) in terms of section 32 of the Act has been rejected and the orders of the authorities below him have been upheld, as a result of which the application of respondent no.5 herein under section 16(3) of the Act stands allowed. I have not felt the necessity of issuing notices to respondent nos. 6 and 7 in view of nature of the order that I am going to pass. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner acquired right, title and interest of survey plot no. 1168, appertaining to khata no. 354, covering an area of one katha, situate at Mauza Dandaspur, District Chapra, by a registered deed of absolute sale deed dated 14.1.97. Respondent no.5 filed an application under section 16(3) of the Act claiming right of preemption with respect to land in question. The same was allowed by order dated 6.8.1997 (Annexure-1), passed by learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Chapra in Land Ceiling Case no. 19/96-97 (Ram Janam Rai Versus Sawaliya Rai). The learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, held that 3 the petitioner herein (purchaser) is not an adjoining raiyat with respect to the vended plot, whereas respondent no.5 is adjoining raiyat. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred appeal which was rejected by order dated 11.3.2003 (Annexure-5), passed by the learned Additional Collector, Saran, at Chapra, in Ceiling Appeal no. 27/97 (Sawaliya Rai vrs Ram Janam Rai). He affirmed the findings of facts recorded by learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred revision application which has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner is not an adjoining raiyat with respect to the vended plot, whereas respondent no.5 is an adjoining raiyat. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he could not avail of the opportunity of local inspection of the lands because his pairvikar proved unfaithful to him. He next submits that he is also an adjoining raiyat with respect to the vended plot, has been sought to be established on the basis of an affidavit dated 24.4.2001 (Annexure-2), sworn by Harihar Rai to the effect that the petitioner’s father had exchanged plot of land mentioned therein, which if upheld, 4 will render the petitioner an adjoining raiyat. In his submission, Annexure-2 has not been considered by anyone of the authorities. It is further submitted that he has already constructed his residential house on the land which his father had received in exchange from Harihar Rai, as a result of which he is an adjoining raiyat. Reliance has been placed on the judgment reported in AIR 1974 SUPREME COURT 471 (Nagindas Vrs Dalpatram). Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 has supported the impugned order. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to me that the three authorities have consistently found that the petitioner is an adjoining raiyat. His claim to the exchanged land is based on an affidavit marked as Annexure-2 which has been found to be unworthy of the reliance. In other words, the petitioner has failed to establish that he is an adjoining raiyat. I am convinced that the affidavit cannot be a document for exchange of lands and cannot alter right, title and interest of the parties. The three authorities have also consistently found that respondent no.5 is an adjoining raiyat. It is thus evident that 5 respondent no.5 (pre-emptor) has been able to establish his right of preemption. The impugned order cannot be faulted. This writ petition is dismissed. (S.K.Katriar,J.) AI