The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Sec.45c and Rule 55 to a preemption proceeding under Sec.16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, emphasizing the responsibility of filing an application for substitution within the prescribed period of 30 days upon the legal representative of the deceased land holder.

Shiva Kirti Singh, J.

1. All the five writ petitions relate to same subject matter of preemption under Sec.16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act? ). They arise out of same facts and involve same questions of law. In fact if Ramdeo Choudhary, respondent No.9 had sold the land in question in favour of the purchasers through single sale deed and not through five sale deeds dated 9-1-1987, there would have been only one preemption case and not five cases. The vendor Ramdeo Choudhary was one of the sons of Anandi Choudhary who had acquired the lands in question by a registered sale deed dated 20-6-1981. He claimed this property to be his self acquired and separate property and not a purchase on behalf of joint family consisting of his father and other brothers but his father Anandi Choudhary preferred preemption applications bearing Ceiling case Nos.12/86-87 to 16/86-87 before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (L. R. D. C), Khagaria claiming himself to be a co-sharer.

2. It is not necessary to go into merits of the issues involved because the case remains to be decided on merits. Since the preemptor, Anandi Choudhary died on 3-12-1990, a substitution petition was filed first by one of his sons, petitioner No.1 and thereafter by the other two petitioners for substitution of their names in place of their late father. Such step for substitution was taken after considerable delay of about 511 days. Objection was raised on behalf of purchasers on the ground that the case had abated and the substitution petitions were time barred and valuable rights had accrued to the purchasers in respect of the vended lands. The L. R. D. C. heard the parties and rejected the substitution petitions as time barred by his common order dated 25-6-1992 and held that all the preemption cases had stood abated. The writ petitioners preferred five Ceiling Appeals bearing Nos.7/92-93 to 11/92-93 before the Additional Collector, Khagaria who allowed the appeals, set aside the order of abatement and allowed substitution. Against this common order of additional Collector dated 30-9-1992 the purchasers preferred Revision bearing case Nos.224 to 228 of 1992 before the Board of Revenue, Bihar which were allowed by order of the learned Additional Member dated 22-3-1993. That common order is under challenge in these writ petitions.

3. By the impugned order the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar has noted the facts clearly and also the rival contentions on the main issue - whether Sec.45 C of the Act read with Rule 55 of the Rules framed under the Act (hereinafter referred to as the Rules?) are applicable for the purpose of substitution in a case of preemption under Sec.16 (3) of the Act.

4. On behalf of the purchasers who were the petitioners before the Board of Revenue it was contended, as finds mentioned in the impugned order, that preemption applications had been filed by Anandi Choudhary in his personal capacity and substitution was not possible for enforcing such personal privilege of the preemptor. It was also contented that substitution petition was required to be filed within 90 days as per Article 120 of the Limitation act, 1963 whereas substitution petitions were filed after delay of 511 days on 12-3-1992 and 28-4-1992 hence the case had abated after 90 days from the death of the preemptor. The purchasers had also contended that Sec.45 C of the Act and Rule 55 of the Rules were not attracted in the case of preemption proceedings because they provide for substitution of the legal representatives of only a deceased land holder, a term defined in the Act and not in the case of death of a preemptor. The case of the purchasers was that substitution will be governed by Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 120 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, the order of the L. R. D. C. was justified.

5. On the other hand the contentions