Judgment 1. The petitioner has come up by this writ application praying to quash the appellate order dated 10-9-84 as contained in Annexure-2 of the Additional Collector, Munger (respondent No. 3) passed in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 17/ 38 of 1983 as also the revisional order dated 18-5-85 (as contained in Annexure-1) passed by one of the Additional Members, Board of Revenue in District Munger Revision Case No. 3 of 1985. 2. By a sale deed, registered on 20-8-1981, respondent No. 1, Palak Dhari Yadav, transferred 14 decimals of land in Plot No. 1395 appertaining to Khata No. 3 of Village Amba, Police Station Jhajha, District Munger to Shyam Yadav (father of the petitioner and Dhanpat Yadav (respondent No. 6) mentioning Niz in the northern and southern boundaries, Koril Yadav on the eastern boundary and Jhaman Yadav on western boundary of the vended land. Respondent No. 5 Lootan Yadav filed an application u/s. 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming re-conveyance of the land transferred by the aforementioned deed on the grounds that he is a raiyat owning land in the boundary of the land transferred whereas the transferees are neither co-sharers nor are they raiyats holding lands on any of the boundary of the land transferred and that wrong boundary has been mentioned in the sale deed. 3. To the aforesaid application the petitioner and respondents Nos. 6 and 7 were impleaded as parties, who appeared and resisted the claim of respondent No.5 asserting that the application is liable to be rejected in view of the fact that the petitioner and respondent No. 6 themselves are raiyats owning lands towards west of the land transferred. 4. It was explained by the petitioner during hearing that plot No. 1391 is the land which is on the western boundary of the land transferred, which stood recorded in the record of rights in the name of Jhaman Yadav, who was his great grandfather, and that they (the petitioner and respondent No. 6) are coming in possession of that land. 5. 5. The respondent No.4 by his order dated 9th of July, 1982 (as contained in Annexure-3) was pleased to reject the claim of re-conveyance of respondent No.5 on several grounds, one of which was that the purchasers themselves own their land in plot No. 1391 which is situate adjacent west of the land transferred. 6. Respondent No. 5, thereafter went up in appeal, which was allowed by order dated 10-9-1984 disbelieving the case of the petitioner of ownership and possession of plot No. 1391. 7. The petitioner, thereafter went up in revision before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed by the order dated 18-5-85 on the ground that it is barred by limitation after holding that no sufficient ground has been given and/or proved for condoning the delay occurred while preferring the revision petition. 8. Mr. Ramnath Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contended as follows :- (i) The reasons given by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue are utterly misconceived on facts as well as in law. (ii) Even assuming that the revision petition was barred by limitation still this Court has ample jurisdiction to set aside the appellate order (Annexure-2) which in view of the admitted legal position in this case that plot No. 1391 is situate adjacent west of the vended land which stood recorded in the name of Jhaman Yadav, who had three sons. Firangi, Muso, who had two sons Shyam Yadav, the father of the petitioner, and Dhanpat Yadav respondent No. 6 and thus the transferees were none else than the grandsons of Jhaman Yadav. (iii) One of the descendants of Muso has sworn an affidavit which has been filed before the authorities, stating that plot No. 1391 is an ancestral land in which the transferees have got share but it has been illegally ignored. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, on the other hand, while praying to dismiss this writ application, contended as follows :- (i) Valid reasons have been given by the revisional Court for holding the revision application barred by limitation and this Court lacks jurisdiction to set aside the appellate order. (ii) On the finding of the appellate Court that plot No. 1391 is in the possession of Etwari Yadav, the eldest son of Muso Yadav and second son of Jhaman Yadav, which is correct, claim of reconveyance has been correctly allowed. 10. (ii) On the finding of the appellate Court that plot No. 1391 is in the possession of Etwari Yadav, the eldest son of Muso Yadav and second son of Jhaman Yadav, which is correct, claim of reconveyance has been correctly allowed. 10. It is a settled law that the right of pre-emption is a weak right, AIR 1971 Patna 302 (FB). 11. It is also a settled law vide AIR 1986 SC 79 that the character of any joint family property does not change with the severance of the status of the joint family and a joint family property continues to retain its character so long as the joint family property is in existence and is not partitioned amongst the co-sharers. 12. In AIR 1981 SC 77 Karbalai Begum V/s. Md. Sayeed, the Supreme Court held as follows:- "It is well settled that mere non-participation in the rent and profits of the land of a co-sharer does not amount to an ouster so as to give title by adverse possession to the other co-sharer in possession. Indeed even if this fact is admitted then the legal position would be that the co-sharers in possession would become constructive trustees on behalf of the co-sharer who is not in possession and the right of such co-sharer would be deemed to be protected by the trustees." 13. In Bishunpat Singh and others V/s. The State of Bihar and others 1977 Bihar Revenue and Labour Journal page 54 : (AIR 1977 NOC 176) (Revenue Section) a Division Bench of this Court after referring to the definition of the words "Land Holder" and "Raiyat" held as follows:- "Land-holder has been defined in sec. 2(g) of the Act which is as follows:- "Land-holder" means a family, as defined in clause (ee) holding land as raiyat or as under raiyat and includes a mortgagee of land with possession. Raiyat has also been defined in sec. 2(g) of the Act which is as follows:- "Land-holder" means a family, as defined in clause (ee) holding land as raiyat or as under raiyat and includes a mortgagee of land with possession. Raiyat has also been defined in sec. 2(k) of the Act which is as follows: "Raiyat" means primarily a person who has acquired a right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating by himself, or by members of his family or by servants or with aid of partners, includes the successors-in-interest of persons who have acquired such a right and includes, in the district of Santhal Parganas, a village headman in respect of his private land, if any, but does not include in the areas to which the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (Bengal Act VI of 1908) applies a Mundari Khunt Kattidar or a Bhuinhar. It is thus clear that actual physical possession of the land is not necessary to constitute a person as Raiyat. Raiyat, as defined means a person holding land for the purpose of cultivating himself or by the member of his family." "There is no case of ouster pleaded or proved in this case." 14. It is thus also clear in law that in absence of any pleading and/or evidence of partition in the family of Jhuman Yadav possession of Etwari and/ or his descendants over plot No. 1391 would be deemed to be the possession of the petitioners father and of the petitioner as well as of respondent No. 6 and thus they all would be co-sharers of the said plot No. 1391. The appellate authority has not correctly understood this legal position in this case that the petitioner and respondent No. 6 themselves were also such raiyats who are holding lands adjacent to the land transferred and in that view of the matter the petition of respondent No. 5 was liable to be dismissed and the appellate authority has committed an apparent error of law in not dismissing the same on that account. 15. It being an undisputed position that plot No. 1391 is adjacent west of the land transferred, I am of the view that the claim of re-conveyance was illegally allowed by the appellate authority. 16. 15. It being an undisputed position that plot No. 1391 is adjacent west of the land transferred, I am of the view that the claim of re-conveyance was illegally allowed by the appellate authority. 16. In C.W.J.C. No. 1845 of 1976 Ramjanki Mandir V/s. State of Bihar, disposed of on 6-12-1976 by a Division Bench of this Court, it was held to the effect that dismissal by the Board of Revenue of a revision petition on the ground of limitation is no bar to the writ issuing powers of this Court and in issuing an appropriate writ setting aside the Revisional original and/or appellate orders. I am also further of the view that this Court has got plenary powers to set aside any illegal order in the interest of justice and accordingly I reject the submission of the learned counsel for the contesting respondent that this Court has no Jurisdiction to set aside the appellate order. 17. For the reasons aforementioned I hold that the application u/s. 16(3) of the Act filed by respondent No. 5 was liable to be rejected on the ground that the transferees themselves were adjoining raiyats. 18. In the result the appellate as well as the revisional orders as contained in Annexures- 1 and 2 respectively of the writ petition are quashed. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. 19. Let a writ in the nature of certiorari issue accordingly. Petition allowed