(1.) THE petitioner purchased 4 kathas and one dhur of land of Plot No. 644 and 2 kathas � dhurs of land of Plot No. 651, both appertaining to Khata No. 140 of village Bhikhampur from the respondent Nos. 5 to 9 by a sale deed which was registered on 6.12.1986. Respondent No. 4 claiming himself as adjoining raiyat by reason of certain lands recorded in the name of his father, filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (for short " the Act") giving rise to Case No. 20 of 1986-87. THE petitioner, on notice, appeared and resisted the claim on the ground that prior to lodging of the claim under Section 16(3) of the Act the petitioner had acquired 2 kathas and odd land in Plot No. 651 from the co-sharers of the vendors on 1.12.1986, as such, he himself had become adjoining raiyat in respect of one of the vended plots (Plot No. 651). He also objected to grant of the relief on the ground that even going by the case of the preemptor-respondent No. 4, the recorded tenant of the adjoining plot/land bearing Plot Nos. 646 and 660 is the father of the preemptor (respondent No. 4). THE father has not filed the application and on this count also, the claim made by respondent No. 4 was fit to be rejected. On a consideration of the matter, the respondent No. 3 by order dated 4.8.1988 (Annexure-3) rejected the claim of the respondent No. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent No. 4 filed appeal vide L.C. Appeal No. 113 of 1990-91. THE respondent Appellate Court/Forum by order dated 2.5.1990 (Annexure-4) rejected the appeal. Unrelenting respondent No. 4 filed a revision application thereagainst before the Board of Revenue giving rise to Case No. 377 of 1990. THE said revision application was considered and allowed by a Resolution dated 31.7.1991 (Annexure-1) passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue leading to filing of the present application.
(2.) HEARD Mr. Ashok Kumar in support of the application and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G.-13 for the State. Nobody appeared on behalf of the private respondents.