Judgment 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner in both these writ applications had purchased by two sale deeds one katha of land each adjacent to Basantpur Bazar, District-Siwan. The two plots lie adjacent to the main road. 3. Respondent No. 5, accordingly, filed two pre-emption applications as contemplated under sec. 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, asserting his right to pre-empt the sale as made by his brother. The two applications were first dealt with by the D.C.L.R., Siwan. On request of parties he himself conducted an inspection. Though he found that the pre-emptor was carrying on agriculture operation, the land, in question, was left fallow and he also found that there was a division between the land of the pre-emptor and the land on which pre-emption was being exercised by a common path. He also found that on one side of the land, there was an Anta Chaki and on the other side a Saw Mill. He also found that the land adjacent to the Bazar. He also found that the land had been purchased for making a house, as the purchased land was too small (one katha each) for any organized agricultural activities. He thus found that the nature of the land had substantially changed and it was no more an agricultural land in its true sense. On these findings he rejected the pre-emption applications, which findings were affirmed by the Collector of the district in his order. The pre-emptor, who had appeared and had been heard then filed two revision applications before the Board of Revenue. By the impugned order the learned Additional Member of Revenue has set aside the two orders and allowed the preemption applications. It is this order that is being challenged in the two writ applications respectively. 4. Having heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission stage. 5. It is well established that the right of pre-emption is a very weak right and is a right exclusively available for land that are actually meant for agricultural operation. The Act aforesaid is predominantly drawn up for the purposes of agricultural land ceiling. Sec. 16(3) has been introduced giving a right of pre-emption. 5. It is well established that the right of pre-emption is a very weak right and is a right exclusively available for land that are actually meant for agricultural operation. The Act aforesaid is predominantly drawn up for the purposes of agricultural land ceiling. Sec. 16(3) has been introduced giving a right of pre-emption. For the purposes of ceiling operation, the land can be taken to be in a very very wide notion but when a pre-emption matter is concerned, the same very definition has to be construed in a slightly different manner because the purposes of two are different. 6. Here the findings of the court below are consistent that the land being purchased was lying fallow and was purchased not for any agricultural purposes but for making house. These findings are supported by three material (a) the lands were adjacent to a main road. (b) the lands were adjacent to a growing bazar. (c) the lands sought to be purchased were very small pieces, which are not ordinarily capable of organized agricultural activities. 7. In K. Goswami vs. B. Sah, since reported in 1971 BLJR 974 a Division Bench of this Court has held that small piece of land purchased in a bazar or in the vicinity of growing bazar will genrally not fall within the mischief of pre-emption. 8. To my mind these being findings of fact the learned Additional Member of Revenue in the revisional jurisdiction ought not to have interfered with the findings. Moreover, it appears that the revisional court interfere on basis of wrong appreciation of facts and committed an error of record. 9. The Board of Revenue had recorded in its order that D.C.L.R. gave findings that the lands were no more agricultural land on basis of a report of Anchal Adhikari, which report is not to be found on record. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the order of D.C.L.R., which clearly shows that there was no question of any report from Anchal Adhikari as D.C.L.R. himself had made inspection and recorded in the order that the inspection was made in presence of Anchal Adhikari, the parties and other villagers. Thus wrong appreciation has led the Additional Member of Revenue to come to a different finding of fact. 11. Learned counsel for respondent no. Thus wrong appreciation has led the Additional Member of Revenue to come to a different finding of fact. 11. Learned counsel for respondent no. 5 has relied on a judgment of this court in the case of Chandrika Sah vs. Board of Revenue since reported in 1981 BLJ 344[:1981 PLJR 124] and in particular in para 11 thereof. A reference to the said judgment would show that where it is found that it is a matter of fact that the land was exclusive agricultural land, merely because it lay within a market area would not exclude from the purview of preemption. 12. In the case at hand the findings of the authorities are that the land being ceased to be an agricultural land and are in the vicinity of the bazar and secondly the Division Bench of this court, as noted earlier, has not been referred to. In view of the judgment of this court and in view of the finding of D.C.L.R. and the Collector, the order of Additional Member, Board of Revenue cannot be sustained. 13. These writ applications are accordingly allowed, and the order dated 11.8.2005 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, in Case No. 147/02 and in Case No. 148/02 are set aside.