Aggrieved by order dated 06.10.1998 in Case No. 321 and 322 of 1995 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue whereby, order dated 23.11.1995 passed by the Additional Collector, Palamau in L.C. Appeal No. 01 and 02 of 199596 and order dated 03.05.1995 in L.C. Case No. 1112 of 199495 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Daltonganj have been affirmed, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petitions.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the respondent no. 6 executed two saledeeds being saledeed no. 2392 dated 24.03.1992, registered on 25.05.1994 in favour of the petitioner-Urmila Devi [C.W. J.C. No. 72 of 1999 (R)] and saledeed no. 2393 dated 24.03.1992, registered on 25.05.1994 in favour of the petitioners-Pushpa Devi and Urmila Devi [C.W. J.C. No. 74 of 1999 (R)]. The respondent no. 5 filed an application dated 22.08.1994 under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 claiming right of preemption and the same was registered as L.C. Case No. 1112 of 199495. Vide order dated 03.05.1995 the L.C. Case No. 1112 of 199495 was allowed in favour of the respondent no. 5 and the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the said order has been dismissed vide order dated 23.11.1995. Contending that it would be evident from the document that the claim of the respondent no. 5 as a cosharer and as an adjoining raiyat is not established and the preemptor-respondent no.5 made partial claim of preemption which is not maintainable in law and he has, in fact, disputed title of the vendor of the petitioners in a proceeding under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 which is also not permissible, the order dated 23.11.1995 was challenged however, Case No. 321 and 322 of 1995 were also dismissed erroneously.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5 stating that his claim is based on two saledeeds being saledeed no. 940 dated 24.02.1992, registered on 01.04.1994 and saledeed no. 5018 dated 06.05.1988, registered on 06.02.1989. The respondent no. 5 claimed that he is a cosharer and an adjoining raiyat of most of the plots comprised in both the saledeeds. The petitioners are not cosharer/adjoining raiyat. The village map and a rough sketch have been produced to indicate that the respondent no. 5 is an adjoining raiyat of all the vended plots. The preemptor-respondent no. 5 has not claimed himself an adjacent raiyat with respect to the land which has been vended in favour of the petitioner Urmila Devi by the respondent no. 6 through saledeed for plot no. 470 and plot no. 469. The giftdeed allegedly executed on 22.07.1994 has purposely been executed to defeat the right of preemption to the preemptor-respondent no. 5.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Relying on a decision in “Smt. Priyambada Devi and Another Vs. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna & Others”, reported in 1985 P.L.J.R. 662, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the finding with respect to the giftdeed being a farzi transaction is not sustainable in law. The preemptor moved an application dated 22.08.1994 in which there was no allegation of the giftdeed being a sham and forged document however, the learned Additional Collector as well as the learned Deputy Collector have recorded a finding that giftdeed is a sham and farzi document and the said finding has been erroneously affirmed by the Revisional Authority. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the right of preemption can be claimed for the entire property comprised in the saledeed and not with respect to a part of property in the saledeed. From the application dated 22.08.1994 it would appear that the preemptor has claimed right of preemption only with respect to a part of property and thus, the application under Section 16(3) of the