JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.:

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“For issuance of an appropriate writ/rule/order/direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.09.11 passed by respondent no. 2 dismissing Land Ceiling Revision no. 05/09 preferred by the petitioners under section 32 of The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the act”) AND for quashing the order dated 24.01.08 passed by respondent no. 3 dismissing L.C. appeal no. 03/07 preferred by the petitioners under section 30 of the act AND for quashing the order dated 28.02.07 passed by respondent no. 4 dismissing L.C. case no. 11/03 and rejecting the claim of pre-emption under section 16(3) of the act, made by the petitioners with respect to the lands in question AND for issuance of such other writ/rule/order/direction as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

Arguments of the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the father of the petitioners had filed the application for pre-emption on 14.07.2003 claiming himself to be the co-sharer and adjoining raiyat of the vended property. The learned counsel submits that vended property is Plot No. 43 and the adjoining property is Plot No. 44. He further submits that initially the order was passed in favour of the father of the petitioners and the claim for pre-emption was allowed vide order dated 08.11.2004 and an inspection was also conducted. The learned counsel submits that the respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal on 03.12.2004 against the order dated 08.11.2004 before the respondent No. 3, which was dismissed, against which revision was filed and the matter was remanded for on the spot inspection with regard to plot No. 44 and for passing order.

4. The learned counsel submits that upon remand, the authorities have passed fresh order against the petitioners by referring to the subsequent sale deed in connection with Plot No. 44 by the same vendor.

5. The learned counsel also submits that the right of pre-emption is a statutory right and the petitioners having satisfied all the required pre-condition for claiming pre-emption had taken steps and such right could not be defeated by referring to any subsequent sale-deed. The learned counsel submits that the Plot No. 44 was subsequently transferred in favour of the private respondent by the same vendor vide registered sale deed, but the same being subsequent to the sale deed involved in the present case, could not be used to defeat the right of the petitioners.

6. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 187/2003 and has referred to paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 thereof to submit that the matter regarding right of pre-emptor has been ultimately crystalized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar and the argument of the private respondent advanced on the last date that right of pre-emption is a weak right will not defeat the right of the petitioners who are claiming statutory right. The learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Rajkishore Singh v. Bhubneshwari Singh reported in (1968) 16 BLJR 33 and has referred to paragraph 8 thereof to submit that the right of preemption stood crystalized in favour of the petitioners under the facts and circumstances of this case and the same could not be defeated by referring to any subsequent sale deed.

Arguments of the private respondent no. 5

7. Learned counsel for the private respondent no. 5 submits that it has been recorded in order dated 02.01.2023 that the private respondent no. 6, who is the widow of the vendor of the property, has already expired and this has already been recorded as back as on 22.10.2019. He submits that though respondent n