M.Y.Eqbal, J.

1. Heard Mr. N.K. Prasad, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Section Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent No.5.

2. It appears that at the initial stage, this writ petition was dismissed in limine on 24.7.1989 by a Division Bench of this Court. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner moved before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 11115 of 1989. The Apex Court remanded the matter in terms of the order dated 4.1.1996 directing this Court to dispose of the writ petition after deciding the question involved therein. Thereafter this writ petition was admitted for hearing on 13.8.1996 and has come before me for final hearing today.

3. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order dated 1.8.1988 passed by respondent No. 3 in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 63 of 1986-87, and the order dated 13.6.1989 passed by respondent No. 2 in Singhbhum Land Ceiling Revision No. 309 of 1988. The proceeding arose out of an application filed by respondent No. 5 under Sec. 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act for short). The land in dispute comprised within Khata No. 69, Khasra No. 5, measuring an area of 12 decimals of land originally belonged to Manoranjan Mahanty (respondent No. 6) who sold it to the petitioner by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated 3.1.1986, a copy of which is Annexure 1 to this writ petition. After the said sale, respondent No. 5 claiming himself to be the adjoining raiyat filed an application under Sec. 16(3) of the said Act before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chakradharpur. The said application was registered as Land Ceiling Case No. 11 of 1985-86. On being noticed the petitioner appeared and contested the application by filing show cause stating, inter alia, that the land is not an agricultural land and the same was used for non-agricultural purposes. Various other defence were taken by the petitioner. The Land Reforms Deputy/Collector after hearing the parties rejected the pre-emption application. The pre-emptor (respondent No. 5) then preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Singhbhum at Chaibasa, being L.C. Appeal No. 63 of 1986-87. The said appeal was allowed and the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector was set aside. The appellate authority directed for re-convey of the property in question in favour of respondent No. 5. The petitioner then moved in revision before the Member Board of Revenue, where the appellate order was eventually affirmed and the revision application was dismissed.

4. Mr. N.K. Prasad, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner, assailed the impugned orders passed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel drawn my attention to Annexure 1, copy of the sale deed in question, and submitted that from the sale deed it will appear that the nature of the land was shown as "Purani Parti having Pasauri Haque" and there is a Khapara Posh house in a portion of the land which is situated within Chakradharpur Municipality. Learned Counsel then submitted that from the sale deed it will not appear that either the vendor ever used the land as agricultural land or it has been used for non-agricultural purposes on the date of transfer in favour of the petitioner. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the original authority came to a right conclusion that the land being the non-agricultural land the provision of Sec. 16(3) of the Act is not applicable. Learned Counsel further submitted that the appellate authority and the revisional authority have based their findings either on assumption or on consideration or irrelevant facts or those facts which are not on record.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent pre-emptor, first of all submitted that when the two Courts, namely, the appellate court and the revisional