S.K.Katriar and B.P.Verma JJ.

1. This writ petition at the instance of the purchaser (petitioner no. 1), as well as the oral donee i.e. the transferee (petitioner no. 2), is directed against the resolution dated 16.8.1995, passed by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, passed in purported exercise of power under Section 32 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in Revision Case No. 154 of 1994 (Md. Shaheed Ansari V/s. Lallanjee Lal and Others), whereby the revision application has been dismissed, and the appellate order has been upheld. The order of the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, rejecting the pre-emption application at the instance of respondent nos. 6 and 7 herein was set aside by the learned appellate authority and the claim of pre-emption was allowed. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the present proceedings.

2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. Petitioner No.1 had purchased the following plots of land situate at Village-Sahiyar, P.S.-Simari, District- Buxar, by a registered deed of absolute sale, executed on 14.7.1987, and registered on 18.4.1991, from respondent nos. 8 and 9.

Khata No.

Khesra No.

Area

257

975

33 decimals

257

977

32 decimals

We may incidentally mention that this writ petition was dismissed against respondent nos. 8 and 9, the vendors, for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 22.4.1997.

3 Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Act before the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector on 13.6.1991 (or 11.6.1991), claiming pre-emption with respect to the vended plots on the ground that they are adjoining raiyats. Petitioner No. 1 stated in her show-cause that she had, on 19.4.1991, transferred the lands in question in favour of petitioner no. 2, her husbands brother, by oral gift (oral hibbanama). She, therefore, took the stand that right, title and interest with respect to the lands in question stood transferred on 19.4.1991 itself, and, therefore, the pre-emption application against her was not maintainable. It is further relevant to state that delivery of possession of the lands in question was made over to respondent nos. 6 and 7 on 4.8.1991. By order dated 7.11.1991, petitioner no. 2 was impleaded as a party respondent. The issue relating to impleadment of petitioner no. 2 was the subject matter of C.W.J.C. No. 5810 of 1992, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 19.1.1993, wherein it was observed that the pre-emption application should be considered and disposed of in the presence of petitioner no. 2. It was further observed that the question whether or not petitioner no. 2 had acquired valid right, title and interest by the purported oral gift made in his favour by petitioner no. 1 has to be decided by the learned L.R.D.C. in the proceedings under Section 16(3) of the Act before him.

4. The pre-emption application was rejected by the learned L.R.D.C. by his order dated 5.5.1993. He held that the. oral gift by petitioner no. 1 in favour of petitioner no. 2 was a valid gift, and shall defeat the right of pre-emption. Aggrieved by the order, respondent nos. 6 and 7 herein preferred appeal which was allowed by the learned Additional Collector, Buxar, by his order dated 16.2.1994, and held that the alleged oral gift in favour of petitioner no. 2 was invalid, at any rate could not be recognized. He further held that respondent nos. 6 and 7 are adjoining raiyats with respect to the vended plots and, therefore, upheld the application for pre-emption. Aggrieved by the order of the learned appellate authority, the petitioners preferred revision application which has been rejected by the impugned order. Hence this writ petition at the instance of the purchaser as well as the oral donee.

5. While assailing the validity of the impugned ord