JUDGMENT N. PANDEY, J. :- This writ petition was filled for quashing the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Katihar (Annexure-3), whereby the pre-emption application lied under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was allowed. A prayer has also been made to quash the order as contained in Annexures 5 and 6 whereby the order of the DCLR was confirmed. 2. It appears the petitioner had purchased 1.19 acres of land in khata no. 32 appertaining to plot no.189 through a registered sale deed dated 23.10.1978 from respondent nos. 7 to 10. Respondent no. 6 claiming pre-emption under section 16(3) of the Act on the basis of adjoining raiyat of the vended land, made an application before the DCLR which was allowed as noticed above. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, an objection was raised with regard to the maintainability of the proceeding under section 16(3) of the Act for the land in question. According to him the land in question was not agricultural, therefore, the proceeding was not maintainable. 4. It appears the Additional Collector while holding inquiry of course found a jhopri over the plot constructed by the petitioner but according to him, it was an attempt to defeat the claim of respondent no.6 Therefore, finally he concluded that the land was agricultural and, therefore, the application under section was allowed. 5. It appears while these proceedings were pending, by the order of the Consolidation Officer, in case no. 68 of 1981, the lands purchased by the petitioner were recorded in his name on the basis of the sale deed as well as possession. Respondent no.6 had also contested but after losing the case, he did not file any appeal etc. Therefore, on the basis of the findings of the Consolidation Officer, chak khatiyan was finally published on 1.8.1983 showing the land as "akan mai sahan and aam bagh". 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the findings of the Consolidation Officer and the final entry in chakbandi khatiyan "house with aam bagh" was recorded over the land, it would not be open to the respondents to treat such land agricultural. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the findings of the Consolidation Officer and the final entry in chakbandi khatiyan "house with aam bagh" was recorded over the land, it would not be open to the respondents to treat such land agricultural. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6 on the other hand contended that from a bare reference to the provisions of the Section 3 of the Act, it would appear that the provisions of the Ceiling Act will have the overriding effect over all other laws. Therefore, the order of the consolidation officer cannot defeat the claim of the petitioner for pre-emption for which an application was already made. 7. In my view, there is no dispute that the pre-emption application of the petitioner was already filed before the findings of the Consolidation Officer, That apart, from a reference to Section 3 of the Act, would appear that the provisions made therein will prevail upon other law. But a question arises whether with respect to a land for which in the up-to-date records of right, "makan mai sahan and orchard" has been recorded, proceedings under section 16(3) of the Act will be maintainable. Because unless and until it is established that the said land is agricultural, no claim for pre-emption can be made. There is no dispute that the Additional Collector while holding local inspection had found that the nature of the land was agricultural. But as noticed above, since in the up-to-date records of right i.e. chakbandi khatiyan, the land in question has been entered as house with orchard, it would be difficult for this court to allow the claim of preemption simply on the basis of the report of the Additional Collector. Because unless and until the up-to-date record of right which has been confirmed under section 16 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act is altered, such entry is binding on the authorities. 8. I, therefore, for the reasons stated above, have no option but to set aside both the impugned orders and allow this application to the extent indicated above. But there shall be no order as to costs.