The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the recorded nature of the land, the importance of possession and construction by the purchasers, and the lack of benefit from a previous case due to differing facts and circumstances.

In all the aforesaid three writ petitions, common orders, passed by the Member, Board of Revenue i.e. revisional court and Additional Collector i.e. appellate court, are under-challenge and as such, with the consent of the parties, all the aforesaid three writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Petitioners purchased land appertaining to Khata No.71, Plot No.1196 and Plot No.1197 measuring an area of 19 decimals and land appertaining to Khata No.219, Plot No.1198 measuring an area of 4 ½ decimals, Mauza Bharko through three registered sale-deeds. After the deed was registered, the respondents 2nd set claiming right of pre-emption preferred three applications, vide Case No. 3/1970-71, 5/1970-71 & 6/1970-71 under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Banka (hereinafter referred to as the “S.D.O.”).

3. The pre-emption application was filed in compliance with the provision of the Act and as such, notices were issued. In the said preemption case, petitioners raised an objection that the purchased land was not agriculture land since on the purchased land, there were houses. A plea was taken that land was purchased for residential purpose not for agriculture purpose. Before the S.D.O., from the side of petitioners, jamabandi khatiyan was produced to show that the nature of land was residential. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer by its order dated 11-06-1984 rejected all the three pre-emption applications by a common order.

4. The pre-emptor (respondents 2nd set) preferred three appeals before the Additional Collector, Banka against the order of Sub- Divisional Officer, vide Miscellaneous Appeal No. 29 of 1984-85, 30 of 1984-85 and 31 of 1984-85. All the three appeals were heard together and the learned Additional Collector, Banka by its order dated 02-08-1984 rejected all the three appeals and affirmed the order passed by the S.D.O.

5. Thereafter, the pre-emptor (respondents 2nd set) preferred revision applications before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna and the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue too rejected the revisions by its order dated 15-12-1984. Order of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue dated 15-12-1984 is required to be quoted here-in-below:-

“Heard. Perused and examined the Memo of Revision petition along with the copy of orders of Lower Court dated 2.8.84.

There is no merit in the petition. The prayer for admission is rejected. This applied to Case Nos. 405 and 406 of 1984 as these cases were disposed of by a common order as analogous.”

6. The pre-emptor (respondents 2nd set) dissatisfied with the order of the revisional court approached this Court by filing three writ petitions, vide C.W.J.C. No. 948 of 1985, 953 of 1985 and 954 of 1985. This Court considering the fact that the appellate court as well as revisional court had rejected the appeals and revisions respectively in a cryptic manner, by judgment dated 5th April, 1996 allowed the writ petitions and remitted back the matter to the appellate authority with a direction to pass order afresh after hearing the parties and considering the Lower Court Records.

7. Thereafter, the matter was heard by the Additional Collector, Banka. It appears that the date on which the record on remand was received, earlier sub-division Banka had already come into existence as a district. The learned Additional Collector on remand summoned the record and after hearing the parties, this time allowed the appeals in favour of pre-emptors, vide Appeal Case No. 29 of 1984-85, 30 of 1984-85 and 31 of 1984-85 only on the ground that in the sale-deeds nature of land was described as agriculture land.

8. Against the order of the appellate court, the petitioners filed three revisions, vide Revision Case No.83 of 1998, 84 of 1998 and 85 of 1998 and the Additional Member, Boar