The Board of Revenue is the final court of fact in proceedings under Section 32 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, and the writ court cannot disturb the findings of fact by the Board of Revenue.

S. S. Sandhawalia, C. J.

1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent must succeed on the twin ground that under Sec.32 of the Bihar Land reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act the board of Revenue is the final court of fact and its findings on issues of fact are not to be lightly disturbed in the writ jurisdiction.

2. The facts herein yet again evidence the protracted trace of litigations within our country. The lis arises from a sale deed dated the 7th November, 1985, executed by the vendor Trijugi Narain Seth, in favour of the appellant jagarnath Sah. However, the sale-deed could not be presented before the regis tering authority within time and there ensued a long litigation for compulsory registration, culminating in the registration of the document on the 24th June, 1969, and other formalities being completed even later on the 1st August, 1969.

3. The pre-emptor, Rameshwar Lal, then filed an application for preemption giving rise to the present proceedings. In the court of the first instance, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, apart from the evidence adduced on the record, made local inspection and, after hearing the parties at length, recorded an eloborate judgment dated the 3rd November, 1971 rejecting the claim for preemption. An appeal was carried to the Additional Collector, who allowed the same and remanded the case back to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, for reconsideration of the entire issue afresh. In compliance with that order, the proceedings were again hotly contensted, and, inter alia, the vendee took the firm stand that the disputed area lay within the boundaries of the Improvement trust and was not agricultural in nature, and, therefore, beyond the scope of section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and acquisition of Surplus Land Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). It was equally the firm stand that the disputed land did not belong to an agriculturist, and, in fact, belonged to a trader and businessman, and, there was a business house built there upon and even the purchase was for a business purpose, namely that of setting up an atta chakki.

4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, by the order dated the 27th september, 1974 (Annexure 1), appeared to be somewhat unmindful of the settled rule that the right of pre-emption is a weak right, which can be defeated on all legitimate grounds and by all legitimate means. He came to a hesitant finding in the following terms :-

"under such circumstances, there is enough material to allow the petition for pre-emption. As such, the petition for pre-emption is allowed. "

5. On an appeal to the Additional Collector, the aforesaid finding was affirmed, somewhat haltingly on the ground that after careful consideration of the facts, he was inclined to accept the pleadings of the respondents lawyer, vide order dated the 7th January, 1976 (Annexure 2 ).

6. The matter was thereafter carried in revision to the Board of Revenue, under Sec.32 of the Act. The learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, bihar, took firm notice of the fact that the basic question herein, which had been repeatedly urged throughout in the lower stages also in the chequered history of the litigation, was that the land in dispute does not come within the purview of section 16 (3) of the Act. On this factual aspect, he came to the under-mentioned clear and categoric finding of facts :-

-

"in this case, it is clear that the pre-emptor is not a Raivat of the adjoining land. It is nowhere his assertion that he is a cultivator and that he cultivates the adjoining land. There is also evidence to the effect that the land in question was homestead site. It is also nowhere the case of any one of the parties that the vendor is a cultivator. In fact, neither the vendor nor the vendee, nor the pre-emptor are cultivators. Then there is also the fact that the land is situated by the side of the National Highway in the midst of a Baz