D.N. Patel, J.- The present writ petition has been preferred, challenging the order, passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi, dated 22nd January, 2008 in Revision Case No. 18 of 2007, whereby, an order, passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, dated 24th December, 2004 in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 10 of 2004, has been quashed and set aside and the order, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, dated 5th June, 2004 in Land Ceiling Case No. 1 of 2004 has been upheld.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, has passed an order dated 5th June, 2004, upon an application, preferred by the petitioner under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act, 1961" for the sake of brevity), whereby, the petitioner was claiming a right of preemption. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an adjacent raiyat and. co-sharer of the land, in question, and, therefore, the respondent cannot sell away the property to a third party, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to purchase the land, in question, and, therefore, an application was preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, which was numbered as Land Ceiling Case No. 1 of 2004. The said application, preferred by the petitioner, was dismissed and it was held that the land, in question, is not an agricultural land and, therefore, the right of pre-emption is never accrued to the petitioner. This order was passed on 5th June, 2004, which is at Annexure-2 to the memo of petition. Against this order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Act, 1961 before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, which was allowed vide order dated 24th December, 2004, which is at Annexure-3 to the memo of petition, and the order, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, dated 5th June, 2004, was quashed and set aside. Against this order, a revision application, which was numbered as Revision Case No. 18 of 2007, was preferred by the respondents, which was allowed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, vide order dated 24th January, 2008. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, in Revision Case No. 18 of 2007 is absolutely against the provisions of law, mainly for the reason that under Section 32 of the Act, 1961, the limitation period for preferring the revision application is thirty days whereas the revision was preferred after approximately three years and there was no separate application for condonation of delay. No notice was ever issued prior to condonation of delay and while allowing the revision application, in one line the delay has been condoned and, therefore also, the impugned order, passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for tile petitioner that no reasons have been assigned by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, while allowing the revision application, filed by the respondents. The said order is, therefore, a non-speaking order. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the order, passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, vide Annexure-4 to the memo of petition the land, in question, was registered in favour of the present petitioner on 8th December, 2006. Thus, the order passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh (Annexure-3 to the memo of petition) has already been executed by a document at Annexure-4 to the memo of petition, which is dated 8th December, 2006 i.e. much prior to the decision, delivered by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, in the revision application. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly a