The definition of 'land' under Sec. 2 (f) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961, includes only the homestead of a 'land-holder', who must hold the land as a 'raiyat' or 'under-raiyat' for agricultural purposes.

Untwalia, J.

1. Shrimati Hasiba Khatoon, respondent 5, purchased the land bearing plot 994 measuring 0.12 acre appertaining to kihata 16, tauzi 1967, in village Ekil Dhonrha in the district of Gava, with, a house standing thereon for Rs. 800.00 from Mst. Bibi Kaniz Fatma. respondent 6, and Mst. Bibi Uzra Khatoon, respondent 7, The purchase was by a sale deed executed on 16-8-1965 which, as mentioned in the order of the Board of Revenue, seems to have been, registered completely in a few days. Shri Mohammad Yusuf. the sole petitioner In this writ application, filed an application on 27-9-1965 under Sec.16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act 12 of 1962), hereinafter called the Act, for pre-emption claiming to be an adjacent raiyat of the land comprised in plot 996 which, according to him, was to the west of plot 994. The petitioners land comprised in plot 996 also is a homestead piece of land over which stands the house of the petitioner.

2. By order dated 25-7-1966 (Annexure 1) the Sub-divisional Officer. Jehanabad. respondent 3, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Sec.16 (3) of the Act. His findings are (i) that Plots 996 and 994 of khata 16 are ghair mazarua malik land, (ii) that Shri Yusuf is not the co-sharer of the plot in dispute nor of plot 994 and (iii) that the petitioner is not a raiyat or a co-sharer of the adjoining land of the disputed land.

3. The petitioner went up in appeal. The Additional Collector, by his order dated 27-12-1967 (Annexure 2) dismissed the appeal. He did not bother to go into the question whether the land transferred or the land belonging to the petitioner was culturable or used for non-agricultural purposes. He however, defeated the petitioner on the ground that he has failed to prove that he was a raiyat of an adjoining piece of land because on the western boundary in the impugned sale deed is shown the name of one Sharfuddin and therefore, the petitioner having not been shown on the western boundary, could not claim to be a raiyat of an adjoining piece of land.

4. The matter was taken by the petitioner in revision before the Com-missioner, Patna Division. The revision was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner by order dated 21-2-1970 (Annexure 3). He also did not go into the character of the land as to whether the land transferred was a piece of land which could be subjected to the provisions of Sec.16 (3) of the Act. He defeated the petitioner on file ground that he had failed to prove that his plot 996 was adjacent to the plot transferred, namely, 994. A review application was filed before him which, was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner by his order dated 11-3-1970 (Annexure 3/a). Then the petitioner went to the Board of Revenue. The learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, by his order dated 17-10-1970 (Annexure 4) has dismissed the revision application of the petitioner on two grounds-- (i) that the homestead piece of land transferred or owned by the petitioner was not for the purpose of agricultural operations and, therefore, it was not a land of the landholder within the definition of Clauses (f) and (g) of Sec.2 of the Act and (ii) that the report of the Anchal Adhikari showed that a gali intervened between plots 994 and 996 and, therefore, the former was not en adjacent plot to the latter.

5. After examining the various facts and the materials of the case including the report of the Anchal Adhikari, it appears to me that the view of all the authorities below that plot 993 is not an adjacent piece of land to plot 994 is not correct; it seems to be adjacent. But that is not sufficient to enable the petitioner to win in this case. The main finding recorded by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, which has rightly been recorded is that neither plot 994 nor plot 996 is a land within the meaning of Clause (f) of Sec.2 of the Act In my opinion, that finding