Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. These three writ applications are directed against an order dated 10-4-1992 (Annexure-2) passed by the Additional Collector and the order dated 16-10-1992 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue and as contained in Anaexure-4 thereto whereby an order of the Collector under the Act directing the respondents to hand over possession of the land which is the subject-matter of a pre-emption proceeding, was set aside. 2. An applications for pre-emption in terms of Sec. 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) were filed in respect of three deeds of sale. The petitioners allegedly deposited the requisite amount in terms of the provisions of the said Act. An application was file by the petitioners school directing the respondents to hand over possession in their favour. 3. The petitioners have contended that on 21-3-1991 when the preemption application was filed no Court of D.C.L.R. existed and thus the petition was placed before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 25-9-1991 who took cognizance of the case on the same day. 4. The respondents appeared before the Sub-Divisional Officer and filed an application for determination of his jurisdiction to entertain the said application as a preliminary issue. The said application was rejected. 5. By an order dated 24-10-1991 the Sub-Divisional Officer directed the respondents to hand over possession to the school in question. 6. An appeal was preferred by the respondents against the said order which was allowed by an order dated 10-4-1992. The petitioners filed a revision application which was dismissed by an order dated 16-10-1992 (Annexure-4) 7. Mr. Thakur Prasad, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised various contentions in support of this application. The learned Counsel submitted that although the land was gifted in favour of the Governor of Bihar, as the same was done for establishment of a proposed school, the petitioner has locus standi to file applications for preemption. It was submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Nirshi Dhobin and Anr. V/s. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Mukherjee reported in -- the School itself is a raiyat, and thus the application under Sec. 16(2) of the Act at instance of the school was maintainable. 8. It was submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Nirshi Dhobin and Anr. V/s. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Mukherjee reported in -- the School itself is a raiyat, and thus the application under Sec. 16(2) of the Act at instance of the school was maintainable. 8. It was further submitted at the order directing the respondents to hand over possession of the lands in question in favour of the petitioner was not a final order and thus no appeal lay against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. It was further submitted that the Board of Revenue has wrongly relied upon a decision of this Court in Ram Janam Gareri V/s. Narbadeahwar Singh and Ors. reported in A.I.R. 1973 Pat 394, which was overruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Chandan Singh and Ors. V/s. Dahu Mahto and Ors. reported in -- . 9. Mr. Sidheshwari Prasad Singh the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the said Act is a special Act and by reason of Section 16(3) thereof a special right has been created for achieving a particular purpose namely, Consolidation of raiyati holdings and prevention of pragmentation thereof. 10. According to the learned Counsel an application for pre-emption has to be considered in the light of the Preamble of the Act and not for the purpose of granting undue benefit to such person including school who do not intend to carry out any agricultural operation therein. 11. The learned Counsel submitted that the deed of gift was executed in favour of the Governor of Bihar for the purpose of construction of a school building, and thus according to the learned Counsel the question of Stows holding the adjoining land as a raiyat does not; arise. It was fur-there submitted that the deed of gift having been executed in favour of the Government of Bihar, the petitioner has no locus standi to file an application under Sec. 16(3) of the Act without obtaining any authority in that regard from the State of Bihar. 12. The learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer only being Incharge of the Court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector had no jurisdiction to pass judicial orders but was only entitled to pass routine orders. 13. 12. The learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer only being Incharge of the Court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector had no jurisdiction to pass judicial orders but was only entitled to pass routine orders. 13. It was further submitted that the S.D.O. misdirected himself in law insofar as he failed to decide the jurisdiction fact as a preliminary issue. 14. It has not been disputed that the School is yet to be recognised by the State of Bihar. The school in question is a proposed school. A final order a to whether the said school will be taken over or selected as a project School is yet to be determined by the State of Bihar. 15. Sec. 17(3) of the Act confers a very weak right upon the preemptor. Evidently the purpose of conferring such a right of pre-emption in favour of a raiyat to exercise his right of purchasing the land sold either by his co-sharer or by an adjoining raiyat. The word raiyat has been defined in Sec. 2(k) of the Act which reads as follows: 2(K) "Raiyat" means primarily a person who has acquired a right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating it by himself or by members of his family or by hired servants or with aid of partners, and includes also the successors in interest or persons who have acquired such a right and includes in the district of Santhal Pargana, village head-man in respect of his private land, if any, but does not include in the areas to which the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (Ben. Act VI of 1908), applies a Mundari, Khuntkattidar or a Bhuinhari. Thus a raiyat is primarily a person who has acquired a right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating it. In course of time however, the raiyat nature and character of the land may change. The said question, however, does not arise for consideration in this case, at this stage. 16. In Shambhu Prasad Singh V/s. Gautom Pandey in 1986 PUR 306 this Court held as follows: To conclude. I would hold that the provision for delivery of possession during the pendency of an application for pre-emption, is not mandatory but only directory in nature and the authority dealing with the matter must satisfy the conditions indicated above before passing the order for giving delivery of possession to the pre-emptor. I would hold that the provision for delivery of possession during the pendency of an application for pre-emption, is not mandatory but only directory in nature and the authority dealing with the matter must satisfy the conditions indicated above before passing the order for giving delivery of possession to the pre-emptor. Taking such a view in my consideration opinion would neither to injustice to either party nor would do violation to the legal provision and the legislative intendment. 17. The right to obtain possession only upon deposit of the requisite amount in terms of Sec. 16(3) and Rule 19 of the Bihar Land Ceiling Rules is thus not automatic. 18. Having gone through the order passed by the Member Board of Revenue and having considered the submissions made at the bar, we are satisfied that it is not a fit case in which we should exercise our discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as both the Appellate Court and the Revisional Court have refused to exercise their discretion in the matter of interim delivery of possession in favour of the petitioner. In passing the said order, Court below have not committed such jurisdictional errors warranting our interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 19. Even assuming that Mr. Thakur Prasad is correct in his submission that no appeal lay against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, feel that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Sub-Divisional Officer should not have exercised his jurisdiction without considering all aspects of the matter including his own jurisdiction to entertain the application for pre-emption. 20. It is now well settled that this Court in the facts and circumstances of a case, may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. 21. Reference in this connection may be made to Pramod Kumar V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1988 PUR 923 and Suku Matho V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1993 (1) Bihar Law Judgments 41. 22. We have deliberately refrained ourselves from considering the argument advanced by the parties on merits of the matter as in our opinion, the same would prejudice the case of either of the parties before the Collector under the Act. 23. For the reasons aforementioned, these writ applications are dismissed, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. 24. 23. For the reasons aforementioned, these writ applications are dismissed, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. 24. A.N. Chatturvedi, J. I agree.