1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. These seven writ petitions have been filed against an order, dated 16.7.1996 of remand by this Court passed in CWJC No. 2619 of 1987. The Division Bench of this court directed that the Land Reforms Deputy Collector should allow the parties to lead evidence regarding the exact nature of the land, on the date of its purchase, so as to determine whether the disputed land is covered by the definition contained in Section 2(f) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). After the order of remand the parties did not lead oral evidence. However, local inspection was conducted as directed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector on 25.5.1998 regarding the nature of the land.

3. I would first deal with the findings of the local inspection which goes to the root of the matter. The land in question was purchased by the private respondents which appertains to plot no. 77, khesra no. 3079. The findings of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector are that west to plot no. 77 is plot nos. 65 and 75. Plot No. 75 belongs to Sudama Ojha which is adjacent to plot no. 77 and part of plot no. 68 touches plot no. 77. Plot No. 77 has been described as Parti land. The main road runs 500 north to plot no. 77 and there are some houses situated just on the road. Adjacent to plot no. 75 is plot no. 86 which is a house and some of the lands have been used to grow maize. Next to plot no. 86, there is a house of Zalim Paswan. Mahabeer Singh, the petitioner has his house on the east of plot no. 77 and has a piece of land on the north side which is being utilized for growing maize. The petitioners also have some lands which extend to the boundary of the west side alongwith the boundary of Sudama Ojha and Imam Bux Ansari. The local inspection which has not been disputed by the either parties reveals as follows:

(a) Firstly plot no. 77 is surrounded by residential houses,

(b) Some of the plots have residential houses alongwith some lands which is used to grow crops, such as maize,

(c) that the petitioners is a boundary raiyat of plot no. 77, and

(d) that respondent Imam Bux Ansari is also a boundary raiyat as some part of his land touches the boundary of plot no. 77.

4. By seven sale deeds, Imam Bux Ansari and his six sons have purchased land measuring 3 kathas and 3 dhurs. The sale deeds are with respect to 10 dhurs of land each.

5. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector held in favour of the petitioners and rejected the pre-emption application by order, dated 9.12.1998. The order was reversed by the Additional Collector in favour of the petitioners on 16.12.2000 which was set aside by the Member, Board of Revenue vide order, dated 27.11.2002.

6. The Additional Collector while reversing the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Vaishali has considered three points, that is, (a) whether the preemption application would be maintainable under Section 63 with respect to the Municipal Area, (b) whether the land which has been sold is agricultural land or not, and (c) whether the petitioners are boundary raiyat.

7. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioners are all boundary raiyats and as such nothing has to be said on this issue.

8. Having found that the petitioners are the boundary raiyats the question is whether in the facts of this case, their pre-emption application should be allowed the land which has been purchased in consonance with Section 63 of the Act. This court notices that the lands purchased through the seven sales deeds are 10 dhurs only which is a very small piece of land and even if they are taken together, it is 3 kathas and 3 dhurs which is also a very small piece of land and is clearly not capable of being used for agricultural purposes unless the petitioners have adjoining lands which is being used for agricultural purposes. It is also clear that there are several houses in the vicinity and most of