Order In both cases as petitioners and contesting respondents are common, common orders are under challenge, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners/predecessors in interest of petitioners purchased total 21 decimals of lands by two registered sale deeds both executed on 2.3.1972 and both registered on 17.8.1972, each document conveying an area of 10-1/4 decimals of common plot no. 341 (part), Khata no. 26. The vended lands in dispute are situated within the limits of Gaya Municipality. 3. The contesting-respondent, Kailashpati Narayan Yadav, preferred two applic3tions under Section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act claiming pre-emption over both the vended lands which were registered as L.C. case nos. 20 of 1972-73 and 21 of 1972-73. The petitioners on notice appeared and opposed the cases on different grounds. The D.C.L.R. vide his common order allowed both the applications and directed the purchasers i.e. predecessors in interest of petitioners to re-convey the lands in favour of the preemptor. The appeal, thereafter, preferred by the petitioners were rejected against which two writ petitions were preferred by the petitioners. Both the cases were remitted to the appellate authority by this Court's order dated 30.10.1990. 4. It appears that appeal no.26 of 1992-93 and 27 of 1992-93 were, thereafter, heard and rejected by common order dated 30.10.1993. The revision case nos. 551 of 1993 and 552 of 1993, thereafter, preferred by the petitioners, were also rejected by common impugned order dated 29.3.1996. 5. The grievances of the petitioners are that the appellate authority had failed to take into consideration the evidences which were brought on record by the petitioners and violated the direction of this Court by not considering the aforesaid documents. Further according to them, the lands being situated within the Municipal area, surrounded by roads and not being capable for use of agriculture, the application for pre-emption was not maintainable. 6. According to the counsel appearing on behalf of contesting-respondents Kailash Pati Narayan Yadav, there being concurrent finding of fact, this Court should not interfere with the matter under the writ jurisdiction. All the courts held that the land in question is agricultural lands the sixth respondent is adjoining raiyat and thereby the application for preemptions were maintainable, even no asessment was made for municipal tax in respect to both sets of lands. 7. All the courts held that the land in question is agricultural lands the sixth respondent is adjoining raiyat and thereby the application for preemptions were maintainable, even no asessment was made for municipal tax in respect to both sets of lands. 7. From the pleadings made by the parties, it came to my notice, both sets of land were purchased by the predecessors in interest of petitioners for setting some industry thereon. The District Industry Officer vide his letter dated 2.9.1972 Communicated that the plan of establishing industry has been sanctioned. Both sets of lards were purchased out of a comon plot no. 341 (part) on the same day. On query made by the Court, counsel for the respondents stated that the vended lands are adjacent. 8. The question relating to claim of pre-emption in respect to two sets of lands, adjacent to each other, purchased on the same date was placed for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Roop Yadav Vs. State of Bihar & ors. reported in 1987 PLJR 455 . In the said case, the Division Bench held that a persons-purchasing two plots adjacent to each, other on the same day has a better title over the other adjoining raiyats of the two plots. The purchaser of the plot became himself the land-holder of adjoining plots in order to defeat the claim of pre-emption. 9. In the present case, though two sets of lands out of a common plot were purchased on the same day, none, of the authorities considered the aforesaid question as to whether the purchaser himself became the adjoining raiyat to one and another and thereby the application for pre-emption preferred by the respondent was maintainable or not. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I set aside the common revisional order, dated 29.3.1996 and remit the cases no.551 of 1993 and 552 of 1993 to the Board of Revenue for a decision afresh in respect to the aforesaid issue. It will be open to the parties to lead evidences for decision in this respect. The revisional authority will consider whether the vended plots, purchased on the same day, were adjoining to each other or not. If they are adjacent, the application for pre-emption preferred by the sixth-respondent is liable to be rejected. It will be open to the parties to lead evidences for decision in this respect. The revisional authority will consider whether the vended plots, purchased on the same day, were adjoining to each other or not. If they are adjacent, the application for pre-emption preferred by the sixth-respondent is liable to be rejected. On the other hand if vended plots are not adjacent he will allow such application for pre-emption. 11. This writ petition stands disposed of with, the aforesaid observations and directions.