RESOLUTION Heard the parties through their learned lawyers. 2. This is a petition in revision against the order dated 24.4.1969 of the learned Commissioner. Tirhut Division upholding the order dated 22.1.1966 of the learned Additional Collector, Darbhanga, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for pre-emption in respect of a portion of plot no. 1837 measuring 5 dhurs in village Lohna, P. S. Jhanjharpur. 3. The learned lawyer for the petitioner has conceded that he has no case as the petitioner had applied for pre-emption only in respect of plot no. 1837, whereas the sale deed was for plots nos. 1837 and 1963. The petitioner states that he is willing to take only the portion of plot no. 837, for which he has applied, even though he has deposited the entire consideration amount as given in the sale deed for the two plots, plus 10 per cent solatium. The opposite party has relied on the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in (1) C. W. J. C. No. 194 of 1967-Ram Chabila Singh and another V. Ram Sagar Singh and others reported in 1968 PLJR 279 = 1969 B. L. J. R. 203 to the effect that a further subdivision of the land transferred is not contemplated in Clause (1) of Sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 and that the legislature had clearly indicated that when the right of preemption is granted to the applicant, the transferee will be directed to transfer the land to him on the same terms and conditions as were contained in the deed of transfer. 4. Had the petitioner applied for pre-emption in respect of both the plots transferred by the sale deed in question, his case would have on a different footing. As, however, the petitioner had applied for pre-emption in respect of only a portion of one plot no. 1837 and not the other plot no. 1963, pre-emption cannot be allowed as the expression "land" in Sub-clause (1) of Sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Act denotes the entire land transferred by the sale deed in question. 5. The lower courts were, therefore, justified in rejecting the application for pre-emption. The petition is accordingly rejected. Petition rejected.