The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the nature of the vended land and the intention of the purchasers as expressed in the sale deed to determine its suitability for agricultural use and the applicability of pre-emption laws.

1. Petitioners herein are the purchasers of small tract of land which became subject matter of claim under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (for short the Act) by respondent nos. 6 to 8, who claimed themselves adjoining raiyat(s) of the vended land/ plot(s). Impugned in the present writ petition is the resolution dated 20.1.2006 (Annexure-4) passed by the respondent Board of Revenue, Bihar in case no. 221 of 2005, whereby the revision application preferred by the petitioners was rejected.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as under: 6 dhurs of land appertaining to khata no. 260, khesra no. 1105 situated in Mouza- Mohanpur in the District of Samastipur was vended by a deed of sale (Annexure- 1) by respondent nos. 9 to 11 in favour of the writ petitioners. A preferential claim as engrafted under Section 16(3) of the Act was filed by the pre-emptors/respondent nos. 6 to 8 giving rise to L.C. Case No. 1 of 2004-05. On notice, the purchasers appeared and resisted the claim of preemption, inter alia, on the ground that the very small tract of land purchased by them was for residential purposes and the same has changed its colour/use/nature and as such right of pre-emption would not survive against the vended land/plot. On a consideration of the materials on record, the respondent D.C.L.R., by a proceeding dated 22.9.2004 (Annexure-2), dismissed the application of pre-emptors/respondent nos. 6 to 8 concluding therein that a very small tract of land was purchased by the writ petitioners for construction of his residential house and the same was not capable of being used for agriculture in any manner. The land was close to a road constructed by the Public Works Department, Government of Bihar. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the pre-emptors/respondent nos. 6 to 8 preferred appeal vide L.C. Appeal No. 122 of 2004-05. Respondent appellate Court/authority by a proceeding dated 10.8.2005 (Annexure-3) allowed the appeal holding therein that from the recitals made in the sale deed it was apparent that both the vendors and vendees were agriculturists and the vended land was described as Bheet-1 and, therefore, the same was amenable to the provision contained under Section 16(3) of the Act. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the writ petitioners preferred revision which was considered and rejected by resolution dated 20.1.2006 (Annexure-4) passaging filing of present writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, respondent nos. 6 to 8 (pre-emptors) as well as the State.

4. While assailing the revisional as well as the appellate order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the subject sale deed (Annexure-1), the preemptors have not been reflected as adjoining raiyat(s). A very small tract of land (less than half katha) was purchased by the writ petitioners. It has been specifically recited therein that such purchase was being made for construction of residential house of the purchasers. The boundary set out in the subject sale deed would show that on the Western side of the vended plot there is a public road/ rasta. D.C.L.R., in view of the claim/counter claim of the parties, made local inspection of the plot in question and found that several residential premises have come up on or around the vended land which was close to a road constructed by the Public Works Department of Government of Bihar. It is, thus, submitted that the vended land would not be amenable to pre-emption proceeding. Reliance in this regard has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Vidya Prasad Singh V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. since reported in 2010(2) PLJR 17 as also on 2010(4)PLJR 104 (Mahabeer Singh & Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.).

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the pre-emptors/respondent nos. 6 to 8, drawing attention of the Court to recitals made in the subject sale deed (Annexure-1) submitted that t