IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14248 of 2005 1. RAM KRIPAL SINGH S/O RAM PRASAD SINGH 2. LAXMAN SINGH S/O RAM PADARATH SINGH, BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE DHANDHUA, P.O. DHANDHUA P.S. JANDAHA, DISTIRICT VAISHALI …PETTIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COLLECTOR, VAIS ALI AT HAJIPUR 4. D.C.L.R., MAHUA, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 5. AWADH KISHORE SINGH 6. LAL KISHORE SINGH, BOTH 5 AND 6 ARE SONS OF LATE RAM NANDAN SINGH, RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE DHANDHUA, P.S. JANDAHA, P.O. DHANDHUA, DISTRICT VAISHALI. …RESPONDENTS For the petitioners :Mr.Javed Islam For respondent no. 5 & 6 :Mr. Bhubhneshwar Prasad For the State :Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Upadhyay, A.C. to G.P.10 ----------- 04. 27.04.2011 Petitioners are pre-emptors. They are aggrieved by the Resolution dated 31.05.2005 (Annexure-4) passed in Revision Case No. 220 of 2004(Awadh Kishore Singh & Ors. Vs. Ram Kripal Singh & Ors.), whereby the revision application preferred by the purchasers(respondents 5 and 6) was allowed. Background facts are as follows:- Respondent no.7 sold five decimals of land details whereof are set out in paragraph 4 to respondents 5 and 6 by a sale deed dated 7.8.2000 (Annexure-1). Since petitioner no.2 along with others was reflected as adjoining raiyat on the western side of the vended land(s), a claim u/s 16(3) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act,1961 (for short “the Act”) was lodged vide L.C. Case No. 8/01-02. On notice the vendees (respondents 5 and 6) appeared and resisted the claim of pre-emption on 2 diverse counts. On a consideration of the matter, the respondent D.C.L.R. by a proceeding dated 9.2.2002 (Annexure-2) rejected the claim of pre-emption. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order writ petitioners filed appeal being Pre-emption Appeal No.74/01-2. The appellate court by a proceeding dated 31.7.2004 (Annexure-3) allowed the appeal and upheld the claim of pre- emption raised on behalf of the writ petitioners. Aggrieved over the said order, the purchasers(respondents 5 and 6) filed the revision application which was allowed by order dated 31.05.2005 (Annexure-4) leading to filing of the present application. I have heard the parties at length. The revisional court in its Resolution dated 31.05.2005 has noticed the submissions made on behalf of the parties and on a consideration thereof held as under:- “…..I have come to the conclusion that pre- emption application has not been filed in accordance with law, i.e. in L.C. form 13. I also find that petitioners have acquired the same status as the pre-emptors by virtue of being in possession of khesra No.169 Area 27 Decimals which has been registered on 21.6.1948 under Bhorna Bond and there is no redemption so far. On support of this they have filed a decision report in 1970 PLJR 879. Their name have been entered into the Revisional khatian as well as Chakabandi khatian….” “…..Petitioners have purchased the land in question for purposes of construction of house 3 and thereafter they have constructed their house and living therein with their family. Petitioners have filed certificate granted by Anchal Adhikari as well as Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahua with respect to the residential house. Perused SDO Mahua residential certificate bearing no.1028 dated 24.11.01 wherein C.O.Jandaha’s certificate no.321 dt. 9.11.2001 finds a mention. The said certificate has been issued in the name of the petitioner Awadh Kishore Singh. “I further find that petitioners are also landless persons. Therefore, they should have been protected against the claim of pre-emption as has been held in decision reported in 1997(2) PLJR 287. In the BPL list of Block Jandaha sl.No.13003 the name of Indu Devi w/o petitioner-2 Lal Kishore Singh occurs.” “I have also come to the conclusion that one of the co-sharers of the pre-emptor namely Ram Pukar Singh has not been impleaded as party. Therefore, on the ground of non joinder of necessary party, the claim of pre-emption has failed. In absence of Ram Pukar Singh, the co- sharer of the pre-emptor, and in absence of any evidence in support of the fact that out of the two co-sharer, the adjoining land to the vended land was in share of the pre-emptor can not be accepted. It is well settled law that right of pre- emption is a very weak right which can be defeated by any legitimate means. Therefore, the claim of the pre-emptors fails. Opposite parties have not been able to prove that the land in question is not residential house and petitioners are not landless persons. Opposite parties have 4 also completely failed to prove that their right of pre-emption is better than the petitioners- purchasers who are themselves holder or adjoining land on the western boundary of the vended plot.” In my view, those findings based on materials on record cannot be interfered with by invocation of extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. The application lacks merit which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )