Order This application has been preferred by the petitioner against order dated 15th October, 1999, passed in Land Ceiling Case Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 1998-99, as affirmed by the Appellate Court, vide order dated 29th November, 2000 in Land Ceiling Appeal Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 1999-2000. 2. It appears that the Respondent No. 4, Gupteshwar Mishra filed an application under Section 16(3) of Land Ceiling Act for pre-emption of the land, in question, wherein an application was filed for impleading the petitioner as party-Respondent. 3. On receipt of notice, the petitioner appeared and opposed the case and brought to the notice of the court below that the land, in question, was gifted in her favour by her father and uncle. She while raised the question of maintainability of petition, in question, under Section 16(3) against the petitioner, she being the loanee, also raised the question of limitation, petition having filed after about five years. 4. The learned court below allowed the application for impleading the petitioner as Respondent, vide order dated 15th October, 1999, which was also affirmed, vide impugned order dated 29th November, 2000 in L.C. Appeal Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 1999-2000, as was preferred by the petitioner. 5. The counsel for the petitioner relied on a Bench decision of Patna High Court dated 16th April, 1999, passed in the case d Imamuddin Ansari and another vs. Member, Board of Revenue and others, (C.W.J.C. No. 2613 of 1987), as also the Supreme Court decision in the case of Gokul Mahto vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1999(2) P.L.J.R. 73 (S.C.), to substantiate the claim that the application for preemption was not maintainable, the land being gifted in favour of petitioner and being time barred. 6. From the impugned order dated 15th October, 1999, it appears that the petitioner raised all the questions, but the authority concerned did not choose to decide the issue on the ground that the matter cannot be decided without full hearing of the case and merely allowed the applicant to implead the petitioner, as Opposite party to the said case. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, no final decision having given, while I do not choose to give any specific finding in the present case, remit the case to the D.C.L.R., Daltonganj to decide the issue relating to maintainability of the preemption application against the petitioner (L.C. Case Nos. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, no final decision having given, while I do not choose to give any specific finding in the present case, remit the case to the D.C.L.R., Daltonganj to decide the issue relating to maintainability of the preemption application against the petitioner (L.C. Case Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 1998-99), taking into consideration the gift, if any, made in favour of petitioner and the question relating to limitation. 8. The aforesaid issue be decided first in all L.C. Case Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 1998-99, preferably within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. As no decision has been given on merit, this Court did not choose to hear the other side for the present. 10. It will be open to the other side to take his defence before the D.C.L.R. concerned. 11. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.