1. This writ petition arises from a proceeding u/s. 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (in short the Act). The purchaser of the disputed land is the petitioner. Me succeeded before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, who rejected the claim of pre-emption put forward on behalf of respondent No. 5 Chitari Jamadar, but lost before the appellate and the revisional authorities, namely, the Collector and the Additional Member, Board of Revenue. The aforesaid orders are contained, respectively, in Annexures 2, 3 and 4 to the writ petition.

2. The dispute relates to 0.07 acre land of plot No. 94 situate at village Jalalgarh in the district of Purnea. On 23-9-86 the petitioner purchased the said land from respondent Nos. 6 and 7 Molai Chauhan and Munri Devi, under a registered sale deed. Respondent No. 5 Chitari Jamadar (hereinafter referred to as pre-emptor) filed application u/s. 16(3) of the Act being Case No. 18 of 1987-88, seeking reconveyance of the land on the same terms and conditions as provided in the section. On 6-4-90 the DCLR, Sadar Purnea exercising powers of the Collector under the Act dismissed the application as mentioned above. He held that the petitioner was a co-sharer and that local inspection had revealed that he had purchased the land for constructing house. The pre-emptor preferred appeal before the Collector vide Ceiling Appeal No. 9/ 90. By order dated 16-10-90 the Collector allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the DCLR. It was the turn of petitioner to challenge the order by way of revision before the Board of Revenue where it was registered as Revision No. 618 of 1990. On 18-5-92 the Additional Member, Board of Revenue dismissed the revision and thus affirmed the order of the Collector. The petitioner has come to this Court for quashing the said orders of the Collector and the Additional Member, Board of Revenue.

3. Two questions appear td have arisen for consideration before the authorities below, namely, whether the disputed land is land within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act and secondly, whether the petitioner is co-sharer. It may be mentioned here that the disputed land belonged to one Puran Nonia who had two sons namely, Molai Chouhan and Anirudh Chouhan, and a daughter Budhia Devi. The son of Budhia Devi is the purchaser i.e. petitioner in this case. The vendors are Molai Chouhan and Munri Devi widow of Anirudh Choudhan, since dead. The pre-emptor, it may also be stated, is son of sister of Puran Nohia.

4. The case of the petitioner is that on the death of Puran Nonia, his mother Budhia Devi inherited his estate along with Molai Chouhan and Anirudh Chouhan and, therefore, he is a co-sharer. The appellate and the revisional authorities have held that during lifetime of Budhia Devi the petitioner cannot claim any interest in the property inherited by her from her father and, therefore, he is not a co-sharer. In the facts and circumstances, we do not find any error in the finding. It may be relevant to mention here that the date of death of Puran Nonia has not been brought on record as to whether he died prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act on 17-6-1956 or afterwards. In case he died prior to coming into force of the Act, his daughter could not have inherited any share in the property left behind by him. Even assuming that Puran Nonia died on or after 17-6-56 when the Hindu Succession Act came into force, a question would still arise as to whether during lifetime of Budhia the petitioner can be held to be a co-sharer. Except that the petitioner is son of Budhia Devi, no attempt has been made on behalf of the petitioner to substantiate his status as a co-sharer. It is to be mentioned here that the term co-sharer within the meaning of sec. 16(3) of the Act refers to the particular land and therefore, it is essential for the person claiming to be a co-sharer to prove that he has interest in the partic