ORDER R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard. 2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.5.2002 passed by learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Boards Case No. 25 of 2001 (Annexure-6) and also the order dated 17.8.2001, passed by the learned Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Hazaribagh (respondent No. 3) in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 1/95-96(Annexure-5) and also the order dated 30.9.1995 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ramgarh, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 4) in Land Ceiling case No. 1/94-95. 3. Respondent No. 5-Banwari Mahto filed a petition under Section 16(3)(i) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenging the purchase made by the petitioner from respondent No. 6-Umram Thandar and claiming to be co-sharer as well as adjoining raiyat of respondent No. 6. After contest, such petition was allowed and petitioner was directed to re-convey the land in favour of respondent No. 5. Petitioners appeal and then the revision also dismissed. 4. Mr. Mehta, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner had purchased adjoining land and therefore he being adjoining raiyat the purchase could not be challenged by another adjoining raiyat-respondent No. 5. He referred to Section 16(3)(i) of the Act. 5. State counsel supported the impugned order. 6. With reference to para 7 of the judgment reported in 1979 BBCJ 151 Mukhi Mali v. State of Bihar, Mr. Sarangi, appearing for respondent No. 5 submitted that the aim of the legislature in framing the law for pre-emption is to facilitate the cultivation of land by certain class of raiyats. Referring to paragraph 11 of the show-cause filed by the petitioner in the proceeding before DCLR, he further submitted that admittedly petitioner purchased the land in question for construction of house and opening of Small Scale Industry. Relying on paragraph 9 of the judgment reported in 1986 BLJ 86 Punit Rai v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar and certain observations made in paragraph 5 of the judgment reported in 1987 PLJR 455 Ram Roop Yadav v. State of Bihar, he submitted that respondent No. 5 being not only adjoining raiyat but also co- sharer had a superior right over the land in question. Supporting the impugned orders, he submitted that the claim of respondent No. 5 has been rightly allowed by the Revenue Authorities. 7. Supporting the impugned orders, he submitted that the claim of respondent No. 5 has been rightly allowed by the Revenue Authorities. 7. Admittedly, petitioner is an adjoining raiyat but respondent No. 5 is a co-sharer as well as an adjoining raiyat. From the judgments cited by Mr. Sarangi, it appears that the purpose behind the law of pre-emption is to facilitate agriculture by co-sharer/adjoining raiyat. Admittedly, petitioner purchased the land for non-agricultural purpose i.e. for constructing house and opening of Small Scale Industry. 8. In view of the said judgments, it has to be held that respondent No. 5 has got a superior right over the land in question for the purpose of cultivation. 9. The result, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.