Judgment 1. The petitioner has filed this application against the revisional order of the Board of Revenue by which his pre-emption application, which stood accepted and allowed by D. C. L. R. and Collector has been set aside. 2. The private respondents i.e. purchasers have appeared and filed counter affidavit. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the vendor. 3. Having heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 4. The petitioner submits that his step brother, who is the vendor, executed two sale deeds on 27.12.1984 being sale deed No. 10123 in respect of 1.11 acres of land appertaining to plot No. 3495 and sale deed No. 10124 for an area of 1.11 acres appertaining to plot No. 3494. Thus, the total land sold by the vendor to the purchaser was of 2.22 acres by two sale deeds, which were both registered simultaneously. On coming to know of the aforesaid, pre-emption application was filed. Pertinent to note that preemption application was filed in respect of sale deed No. 10123 only on the plea that being the first sale deed in matter of total, the petitioner only wanted to preempt that. His further case was that he had filed a suit as against his step brother for proper partition in which plot No. 3495 was involved. As his that application was never in respect of sale deed No. 1024 he did not challenge the same. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a boundary raiyat. The D. C. L. R. allowed the application for pre-emption. 5. The private respondent purchaser who was represented in the proceedings did not appeal at final stage. He preferred an appeal, which was belated. The appeal was entertained after condoning the delay but the appeal was also dismissed. 6. Revision was preferred to the Board of Revenue, which has set aside the two orders which are being impugned. 7. Having perused the order of Board of Revenue it is clear that the ground given is that by the two purchases, the purchaser had himself become the boundary raiyat because the lands that were sought to be purchased are in one block of 2-22 acres. In my view there is no legal infirmity in the order of the board of Revenue. In my view there is no legal infirmity in the order of the board of Revenue. It is well established that right of pre-emption was granted u/s. 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act is a very weak right. Rights of parties have to be balanced. Here the purchaser had intended to purchase 2.22 acres of land. If 1.11 acres is allowed to be pre-empted, then he may not be interested in the other 1.11 acres of land but he is stuck with it because that sale deed be annulled that surely is not to be permitted. The very fact that two sale deeds were executed on the same day and got registered on the same day simultaneously, shows that it was for some reason convenient to get the two sale deeds registered instead of one and the intention of the purchaser was to buy a large area of land. If pre-emption is to be allowed the entire transaction would become onerous for the purchaser. 8. For these reasons this Court is of the opinion that the order requires no interference, this application is dismissed.