Re. I.A. No. 2089 of 2011.

The delay of 60 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.

Re. IPA No. 461 of 2011.

2. This Letters Patent Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 8th November 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 8530 of 2004.

3. The dispute is in respect of a piece of land of Khata No. 50, Khesra No.1015, admeasuring 1 Katha 8 Dhurs of Village Baniapur, Dist. - Saran. The appellant - respondent no. 4 claimed right to pre-emption in respect of the disputed piece of land. Her claim for pre-emption was allowed by the authorities below.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent no. 1, a landless person filed above CWJC No. 8530 of 2004. According to the writ petitioner, he was a landless person while the appellant was an affluent lady. Her claim for pre-emption ought not to have been allowed.

5. The learned single Judge has found that the appellant lady had a house on the western boundary of the disputed land that the disputed land was too small and was not suitable for cultivation and that the land was purchased for residential purpose and not for agricultural purpose. The right to preemption could not have been claimed for a residential land. In view of the said finding, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the tribunal and the authorities below allowing the claim for pre-emption made by the appellant. Therefore, the present Appeal.

6. Learned Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar has appeared for the appellant. He has strenuously urged that the appellant is a poor lady and she needs the piece of land for her livelihood. He admits that the appellant is around 60 years of age.

7. Learned Advocate Mr. Kumar not been able to dislodge the aforesaid finding recorded by the learned single Judge.

8. We are in agreement with the learned single Judge that the right to pre-emption is attached to an agricultural land and not a residential plot of land. The learned single judge has rightly allowed the writ petition.

No case for interference is made out.

9. The Appeal is dismissed in limine.

10. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.