Withdrawal of one of the pre-emptors in a joint application for pre-emption does not affect the right of the remaining claimant(s) to press their claim for pre-emption, provided that each of the remaining claimants is a co-sharer/adjacent raiyat in respect of each of the vended plots.

Aftab Alam, J.

1. This application arises form a pre-emption proceeding under Sec.16 (3) of the Bihar Land reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and, acquisition of Surplus Land) Act.

2. The three petitioners and respondent No.21 being own brothers were the pre-emptors; father of respondents 4 and 5, respondents 6,7,8, father of respondents 9 to 13 and respondent no.14 were the purchasers (hereinafter collectively referred to as the purchasers); respondents 5 to 21 were the vendors.

3. The purchasers purchased a large number of plots (about 24 in number) appertaining to Khata No.49 and adding up to a total area of 2.85 acres from the vendors for a sum of Rs.3,000 only under a sale deed which was executed on 31.10.71. The registration of the sale deed was completed on 21-11-1977. The three petitioners along with respondent No.21 filed a single joint application for -re-emption after depositing the consideration money plus 10% as provided in law and after complying with the necessary formalities. Their claim for pre-emption was based on the plea that each of the four pre-emptors was a co-sharer in respect of each of the vended plots of land; in addition, each of the pre-emptors claimed to be an adjacent raiyat in respect of each of the vended plot.

4. The claim for pre-emption was allowed by the L. R. D. C. , Giridih, by his order dated 29-8-1978 (Annexure 3)passed in Case No.36/77-78/6/78-79. In his order, the L. R. D. C. upheld the pre-emptors claim that they were co-sharers in the vended plots and they were raiyats of adjoining lands too. The purchasers filed an appeal before the Addl. Collector, giridih who held that the finding that the pre-emptors were the adjacent raiyats of the vended plots was not sustainable and further that in the preemption application the details of the vended lands had not been furnished properly. He, accordingly, set aside the order passed by the L. R. D. C. and allowed the appeal by his order dated 22-8-1991.

5. Against the appellate order the four pre-emptors filed a revision before the member, Board of Revenue which was registered as Revision No.352/1991. There one of the pre-emptors, respondent No.21 filed an application, supported by affidavit, seeking to withdraw from the case. It was stated on his behalf that he no longer wished to press his claim of pre-emption and the further prayed for a direction that his share of the money deposited along with he preemption application be refunded to him. The revision filed by the petitioners was rejected by the Member, board of Revenue by order dated 22-8-1991 on the sole ground that one of the pre-emptors had withdrawn from the case. The Learned Member, Board of revenue observed that the consequence of withdrawal of one of the pre-emptors would be that prayer of the remaining petitioners "would amount to a claim of partial pre-emption" which was not permissible.

6. I find the reason assigned by the learned Member, Board of Revenue for rejecting the revision filed by the petitioners quite mis-conceived and unsustainable. The Learned Member seems to have over looked that according to pre-emptors each of them was a co-sharer in each of the vended plots. Therefore, in case of withdrawal of one of the pre-emptors, the remaining would still continue to be co-sharers and would therefore have the right to press their claim for pre-emption.

7. It may be clarified at this point that in case a joint application for preemption is filed on behalf of more than one persons in respect of more than one plots of vended land, there may be two possibilities : one is that all the plots cannot be claimed by any one of the claimants and different claimants are co-sharers/adjacent raiyats in respect of different plots being the subject-matter of the claim of pre-emption. In such event, it would be a case of partial preemption and the claim of pre-emption would not be maintainable either severely or jointly. The other possibility, like the present case as claimed by the