1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent no. 5, the writ petitioner and also learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. By order dated 7.1.2009 the learned Single Judpe has rejected the review application mainly on the ground that the writ petitioner, who purchased the land under pre-emption, has already constructed his house on that land 25 years ago and further on the ground that according to well-established law, pre-emption is a weak right.

3. Before us, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the review application should have been allowed on the ground that the counsel for the appellant who was respondent no. 5 in the writ petition could not appear because he had died.

4. From the approach of the learned Single Judge it is clear that his anxiety was not to prolong the litigation pending for several decades and therefore he made up his mind on the facts of the case and mainly on the ground that the land was being used for homestead purposes for several years.

5. Adopting the approach of the learned Single Judge we also invited learned counsel for the appellant to address on merit. It has been submitted that according to the information obtained by the appellant from the office of Anchal Adhikari, Jamui it transpires that the land having 56 decimals area has been cultivated to the extent of half over which paddy crop was standing whereas remaining half was lying uncultivated but without any house.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. 5/writ petitioner has submitted that the purchaser has purchased only 28 decimals of plot no. 2279 and the information obtained by the appellant from a Public Information Officer at Jamui cannot be relied because the appellant is a co-villager and he himself could have given this information by way of evidence.

7. In our view, the real issue is not whether there is actually a house over the land but the intention of the purchaser as available from the sale deed. The sale deed shows that the land though recorded as agricultural land in the survey records, has been described in the sale deed as a land meant for construction of house. The wordings are in local language and the meaning has been given correctly by the appellate authority which has also recorded its finding after local inspection that the land is suitable for constructing homestead. While allowing the writ petition by judgment and order dated 15.5.2007, the writ court was impressed by such intention expressed at the time of purchase itself in the sale deed and thereafter reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Urmila Devi V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors., 1998(1) PLJR 758 for holding that when the land in question is not agricultural land and is held for residential purposes, as stated in the registered sale deed, the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act relating to pre-emption will not be applicable.

8. Thus, after hearing the parties on merits of the matter, we find no good reason to interfere. The appeal is therefore dismissed but without costs.