Judgment Hari Lal Agrawal, J. 1. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order of the Additional Collector of Patna, dated 22,2.1973 (annexure 2) and the additional Member of the Board of Revenue, dated the 30th December, 1975 (annexure 3) rejecting his application for pre-emption filed under section 16 (3)of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be called as the Act ). 2. The undisputed facts are these. The plot in question is survey plot no.635 of village Jaitia in the district of Patna having a small area of two decimals. This plot was purchased by respondents 6 and 7 in the name of rajbellam Mahato by a registered sale-deed, dated 25.1.1941. It is said that there was a private partition between the brothers and on that account the northern half of plot no.635 measuring one decimal was alloted to Rampravesh mahato (respondent no.6) while the southern half measuring one decimal was allotted to Rajballam Mahato. On 17.12.1967 respondent no.6 had sold his one decimal to Satyadeo Singh, respondent no.5 by a registered deed of sale. In the sale-deed which was executed, on > the northern boundary the name of the petitioner was mentioned as having his house there. The petitioner purchased the remaining one decimal of plot no.635 from Rajballam Mahato, the brother of respondent no.6 by a registered sale-deed, dated 23.12.1967. 3. The petitioner made an application under section 16 (3) of the Act claiming preemption on the ground that he was adjacent raiyat of the plot vended by respondent no.6 to respondent no.5, namely plot no.634 which was adjacent north as already mentioned in the sale-deed executed in favour of respondent no.5. The Sub-divisional Officer, Barh. by his order, dated 17.5.1967 allowed the claim of pre-emption of the petitioner. On appeal taken by respondent no.5 the Additional Collector summarily dismissed it but on revision filed by him before the Commissioner it was allowed and the matter was sent back to the Additional Collector for a fresh consideration. 4. The Sub-divisional Officer, Barh. by his order, dated 17.5.1967 allowed the claim of pre-emption of the petitioner. On appeal taken by respondent no.5 the Additional Collector summarily dismissed it but on revision filed by him before the Commissioner it was allowed and the matter was sent back to the Additional Collector for a fresh consideration. 4. After remand of the matter it was found that in the application filed by the petitioner for pre-emption he had mentioned plot no.632 being on the northern boundary of plot no.635 on the basis of which pre-emption was claimed and inasmuch as plot no.632 did not belong to the petitioner, his claim was rejected. The petitioner had filed survey map and other revenue records to show that mention of plot no.632 was a mistake as in point of fact, on the northern boundary of plot no.635 was the petitioner as the raiyat of plot no.634. This case however was not accepted and the petitioner lost up to the board of Revenue. The petitioner accordingly has filed this writ application. 5. Mr. Shree Nath Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner contended that the error occurring in the application filed by the petitioner for pre-emption was of a clerical nature and the authorities should not have brushed aside the authentic documents such as the survey map and other record and should have taken the view that on the northern boundary of the plot in question lay plot no.634 over which the petitioner was admittedly a raiyat. He also emphasised that no reference has been made by these authorities to the northern boundary mentioned in the sale-deed in question and the respondents were bound by the said boundary and that if that be so, there was no scope from holding that the petitioner was not an adjacent raiyat within the meaning of section 16 (3) of the Act. There seems to be some force in this argument but on examining the matter in detail the application must fail on a different ground. 6. In the sale-deed executed in favour of respondent no.5 it has been mentioned that the vendor Rampravesh was a labourer by profession. The nature of the property as described in the schedule also indicated that it was not land for agricultural purposes but had structure over it and the same was sold along with all the structares and appartenances thereto. In the sale-deed executed in favour of respondent no.5 it has been mentioned that the vendor Rampravesh was a labourer by profession. The nature of the property as described in the schedule also indicated that it was not land for agricultural purposes but had structure over it and the same was sold along with all the structares and appartenances thereto. From the boundaries mentioned in the sale-deed it further appears that apart from these boundaries, on the eastern boundary of the vended land there was a house of one Chariter mystri. Learned counsel, appearing for respondent no.5 contended that inasmuch as respondent no.6 namely his vendor was not a "land holder within the meaning of section 2 (g) of the Act. The provisions of section 2 (g) of the act have no application to this case. Learned counsel invited our attention to the statement of facts made in the order of the Additional Collector to the effect that respondent no.6 had no other land except that one decimal or vended property. 7. It is apparent that the main aim of the legislature in framing the law for pre-emption is to facilitate the cultivation of land by certain class of raiyate. The nature of the land as already stated earlier is not agriculture in nature. But that apart, respondent no.6 held no other land than the land sold by him. In view of the fact that respondent no.6 had no other land except the land sold to respondent no.5 which was not agricultural in nature but homestead ; on reading the definition of the "land holder" the "land" and "raiyat" as defined in different clauses of section 2 it must be held that respondent no.6 was not a raiyat within the meaning of section 2 (k ). As, according to the said definition, a raiyat should have acquired a right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating it by himself or by other means and in order to become a "land holder" within the meaning of section 2 (g) he must be holding land as raiyat or under raiyat. Sec.16 (3) contemplates the right to make an application for preemption only by a person who is a raiyat holding land adjoining the land transferred or a co-sharer who must claim the land in question on the ground of pre-emption. 8. Sec.16 (3) contemplates the right to make an application for preemption only by a person who is a raiyat holding land adjoining the land transferred or a co-sharer who must claim the land in question on the ground of pre-emption. 8. In the case of Kamala Kanta Goswami V/s. Balgobind Sah, (1971 BLJR 974) it was held that the land must be a land which is either used or capable of being used for agricultural and horticultural purpose and even if it is homestead it must be of a land-holder as defined in section 2 (g ). It is very clear from the observation that if the land is not homestead of a land-holder that is a raiyat engaged in agriculture it will not be a "land" within the meaning of the Act and the provision of section 16 (3) will not be applicable to it. This decision was affirmed later on by a Full Bench of this Court in Fakir Mohammad V/s. Salahuddin, (AIR 1975 Patna 119) where the same view was expressed and it was observed that "homestead" must be a homestead of the land-holder. In view of the above authoritative decisions it is not necessary to dilate on the question inasmush as on the facts it is" clear that the vended land cannot be held to be a la nd" of a land-holder within the meaning of the Act and once it is so held the provision of section 16 (3) of the Act would have no application. 9. The application of the petitioner under section 16 (3) of the Act was therefore not maintainable in law and was rightly dismissed by the authorities. 10. For the reasons stated above 1 do not fined any merit in this applica-tion and dismiss the same. Parties will bear their own costs. B. P. Jha, J. I agree. . . . . . . . This matter arises out of an application filed by the petitioner under section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ). The short point for consideration is whether pre-emption can be claimed in respect of homestead land where the transferor is not a land-holder ? The short point for consideration is whether pre-emption can be claimed in respect of homestead land where the transferor is not a land-holder ? under section 16 (3) of the Act a party can claim pre-emption in respect of transfer of land made after the commencement of the Act. The word "land" occurring in section 16 (3) of the Act means tho land as defined in section 2 (f)of the Act. In the present case we are concerned with transfer of homestead land. The land, according to section 2 (F) means homestead land of the landholder. The "land-holder" mcans a family holding land as raiyat or under raiyat. Under section 2 (k) "raiyat" means primarily a person who is holding the land for the purpose of cultivating it by himself or by members of his family or by hired servants. In the present case respondents 6 and 7 transferred the homestead land to respondent no.5. The question is whether the transferrers are land-holders or not The answer is no, for the simple reason that they are not land-holders within the purview of the Act. There is nothing on the record to show that they were holding any other land other than the transferred homestead land as raivats. If they were not holding any raiyati land other than the transferred land as raiyats then respondents 6 and 7 were not land-holders. If they were not land holders then the transfer of land by him cannot be a subjectmatter of pre-emption under section 16 (3) of the Act. For being a land-holder he must be a raiyat first and he should also hold culturable lands other than the transferred homestead land. If the transferor satisfies the condition of being a raiyat then the transfer of homestead land by a raiyat can be a subject-matter of pre-emption and not otherwise. In view of the fact that respondents 6 and 7 were not holding and raiyati land other than the homestead land which they had transferred by a sale deed dated 17.12.1967 to respondent no.5, they do not come within the purview of section 2 (g) read with section 2 (k ). If it is so, such transfer of homestead land is not covered by section 16 (3) of the act and no pre-emption can be filed for such land. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Parties will bear their own osts. If it is so, such transfer of homestead land is not covered by section 16 (3) of the act and no pre-emption can be filed for such land. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Parties will bear their own osts. Petition dismissed.