JUDGMENT :

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.

Re: I. A. No.1024 of 2017 in L. P. A. No.993 of 1996; I. A. No.1023 of 2017 in L. P. A. No.994 of 1996; I. A. No.1025 of 2017 in L. P. A. No.995 of 1996

1. Having heard Shri Shashi Bhushan Kumar, learned counsel for the three proposed heirs of the deceased appellant as well as Shri Prabhakar Jha, learned Government Pleader-27 for the State of Bihar and Shri T. N. Mattin, learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents, the substitution deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice without prejudice to the rights of any other heirs to claim their rights in the pending appeals.

2. The interlocutory applications are allowed.

3. Let necessary corrections be carried out accordingly.

Re: L. P. A. No.993 of 1996; L. P. A. No.994 of 1996; L. P. A. No.995 of 1996.

4. The matters were referred vide an order dated 29th August, 2014 which is extracted here in under:-

“Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nathuni Mahto Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.: 2004 (2) PLJR 334 in which on similar facts as in the present matter the Division Bench had held that the claim of pre-emption is not maintainable.