The main legal point established in the judgment is that the law does not recognize the right of pre-emption by a person claiming to be a superior adjoining raiyat to that of the purchaser who is also an adjoining raiyat but has a smaller boundary.

ORDER :

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29th June 2022 passed in W.P. (C) No. 5699 of 2006, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the pre-emptor) has been allowed. The appellants are the purchasers of the property involved in the present case. The vendor of the property is Smt. Karuna Devi (Respondent No. 5).

2. Respondent No. 4 had allowed the application of the pre-emptor; the appellate authority dismissed the appeal and the revisional authority allowed the revision and set-aside the order of respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4.

3. The prayer of the writ petitioner- pre-emptor before the learned writ Court is as under:

“For issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, Rules, orders, directions to quash the order dated 28.6.2006 (Annexure-7) passed by the respondent no. 2 in Revenue Revision petition bearing Giridih Case No. 76/2006 whereby the respondent no. 2 illegally allowed the Revision petition and set aside the orders dated 02.12.2005 and 25.12.2002 passed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in land ceiling appeal no. 8/2002-03 and Land Ceiling Case No. 38/2001-02 respectively allowing the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 for re-conveyance of land of plot no. 103 measuring area 0.33 acres appertaining to khata no. 1 of village Chandih, Thana no. 499, District Giridih and for issuance of any other writs, orders, Rules, directions as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts and the circumstances of the case stated hereinafter.”

4. The foundational background/facts of the case are as under:

(a) The land measuring area 0.66 acres of plot No. 103, Khata No. 1 of the Village- Chandih, Thana No. 499, District Giridih was purchased by Smt. Karuna Devi W/o Sri Jamuna Halwai and Natho Halwai, S/o late Jhagru Halwai in equal share by registered deed of sale dated 23rd June 1984 from the erstwhile owner, namely, Ram Deo Rai.

(b) Vide registered sale deed dated 11th July 1986, Natho Halwai sold his share of land to the mother of the pre-emptor and Smt. Sita Devi w/o Sri Lal Bihari Sharma in equal share.

(c) Vide registered sale deed dated 12th May 2001, Smt. Karuna Devi sold 0.33 acres of the aforesaid land to the appellants for consideration of Rs. 40,000/-.

(d) The writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘pre-emptor’) filed an application under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the aforesaid Act of 1961) on 15th June 2001 before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Giridih (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DCLR’) and claimed that he was the adjoining raiyat of the vended property involved in sale deed dated 12th May 2001. The application for pre-emption was registered as L.C. Case No. 38 of 2001-02 which was allowed in favor of the pre-emptor vide order dated 25th October 2002.

(e) The appellants preferred an appeal against the order dated 25th December 2002 which was registered as L.C. Appeal No. 02 of 2002-03 before the Additional Collector, Giridih which was dismissed vide order dated 2nd December 2005.

(f) Thereafter, the appellants filed a revision petition against the order dated 2nd December 2005 before the Member Board of Revenue which was registered as Revision Petition Case No. 76 of 2006. The revision petition was allowed by respondent No. 2.

5. The pre-emptor filed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the revisional authority. The learned writ Court allowed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 29th June 2022.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants-purchasers while assailing the impugned order passed by the learned writ Court has submitted that a finding of fact was recorded by the DCLR regarding the appellants being the adjoining raiyat and such finding has ultimately been