RESOLUTION This is a petition in revision against the order 'dated 13-7-1969 of the learned Commissioner, Patna Division upholding the order dated 3-3-1969 of the learned Collector, Shahabad, who had also upheld the order dated' 14-8-1968 of the learned Sub-divisional Officer, Arrah rejecting the application for pre-emption in respect of plots nos. 1719, 1723, 1730- and 1738 in village Farhangpur filed by petitioner Jugeshwar Singh and by Ramjanam Singh, father of O. P. No.2 Ramsurat Singh. The revision petition has been filed only by Jugeshwar Singh and not by Ram Surat Singh, son of Ramjanam Singh the original applicant, who had died during the pendency of the case and in whose place Ram Surat Singh was substituted. The present revision petition therefore deals only with the claim of petitioner - Jugeshwar Singh for preemption. 2. As has been held by the Board in several cases, the Commissioner is not empowered with revisional powers in respect of cases under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, as Section 32 of the Act vests the Board alone with revisional powers. 3. The lower courts have accepted the contention of the opposite party that the applicants Jugeshwar Singh and Ramjanam Singh were of different families and castes and had nothing in common. While rejecting the application, the learned Sub-divisional Officer had wrongly directed that the transferee was entitled to get the solatium of 10% of the purchase money the learned Collector had rightly set aside this portion of the order of the learned Sub-divisional Officer as the transferee is entitled to the solatium only when he has to re-convey the land to the pre-emptor. 4. The learned Collector had agreed with the learned Sub-divisional Officer that plot no. 1737, in possession of the petitioner Jugeshwar, was recorded as an orchard and therefore could not be brought under cultivation. This presumption is not justified. The definition of "land" in Section 2(f) of the Act includes land, which is an orchard. Hence the rejection of the application for preemption, on the ground that plot no, 1737 of the petitioner Jugeshwar is an orchard, cannot be sustained. The learned Sub-divisional Officer had also accepted the contention of the opposite party that plot no. 1737 was recorded in survey in the name of Parmeshwar Mahton and others. Hence the rejection of the application for preemption, on the ground that plot no, 1737 of the petitioner Jugeshwar is an orchard, cannot be sustained. The learned Sub-divisional Officer had also accepted the contention of the opposite party that plot no. 1737 was recorded in survey in the name of Parmeshwar Mahton and others. However in his deposition, the petitioner Jugeshwar has stated that Par mesh war Mahton was his grandfather as this has not been contradicted by the opposite party, Jugeshwar's possession of plot no. 1737 cannot be questioned. From the records of the lower courts and - the survey map, it is clear that Jugeshwar is an adjoining raiyat in respect of plot nos. 1730 and 1738 by virtue of being in possession of plots nos. 1731 and 1737. Jageshwar is also an adjoining raiyat in respect of plot no. 1719, as he is in possession of adjoining plot no. 1717. Jugeshwer Singh is therefore an adjoining raiyat is respect of three of the four plots transferred and is accordingly eligible for pre-emption of the land in question. It is not necessary that the applicant for pre-emption should be an adjoining raiyat in respect of each and everyone of the plots that have been transferred. 5. On behalf of the Opposit Party it is also urged that the petition of Jugeshwar was barred by limitation, as he had wrongly filed a revision petition before the learned Commissioner Patna Division. However, in view of the earlier rulings of the Board that revision would not lie to the Commissioner in respect of cases under the Act, the Board is of the view that the delay should be condoned. 6. Accordingly the petition is allowed and the orders of the learned lower courts are set aside. The transferee is directed to re-convey the four plots in question to the petitioner Jugeshwar Singh within two months. Application allowed.