Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. All these Letters Patent Appeals since arise out of a common order passed by a learned Single Judge of this court, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The appellants are the pre-emptors and they are challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in batch of the writ applications allowing the same arid setting aside the order passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue. 4. The appellants pre-emptors filed eight applications under Sec.16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The pre-emption applications were allowed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Chapra which, however, was set aside by the appellate authority and the order passed by the appellate authority subsequently, was set aside by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue on the basis of the revision application filed by the appellants giving rise to the writ applications filed by the respondent-purchasers which, ultimately, were allowed by the learned Single Judge of this court by the impugned order. 5. The appellants had claimed preemption with respect to plot nos. 47, 161, 175, 287, 370, 389, 515, 519, 562, 564, 503 and 564 covering an area of 10 Bighas appertaining to Khata No. 56 situated at Mauza-Paharpur, P.S. Garha in the district of Saran. The respondents purchased the land in question by 8 sale deeds. The appellants claim to be adjoining raiyats of each of the plots under sale and thus claimed the pre-emption under the provisions of Sec.16(3) of the Act. 6. The learned Single Judge of this court, on appreciation of facts and on consideration of the submission of the parties and in view of a Bench decision of this court in the case of Sukhram Singh vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in AIR 1974 Patna 24, held that the pre-emptors failed to establish to the satisfaction of the court that each and every pre-emptor was either a co-sharer or adjoining raiyat with each and every vended plot and, right of pre-emption being a weak right, they were not entitled for any relief. 7. reported in AIR 1974 Patna 24, held that the pre-emptors failed to establish to the satisfaction of the court that each and every pre-emptor was either a co-sharer or adjoining raiyat with each and every vended plot and, right of pre-emption being a weak right, they were not entitled for any relief. 7. The learned Single Judge of this court on consideration of entire materials on record and on perusal of three sale deeds alongwith compromise decree, held that respondent nos. 5 to 9 of the writ applications were not the adjoining raiyats with respect to each and every vended plot and therefore, the pre-emption applications were liable to be dismissed. At the same time, learned Single Judge of this court also held that the Additional Member, Board of Revenue committed error in allowing the pre-emption applications irrespective of the fact that the pre-emptors were not co-sharers and adjoining raiyats with respect to each and every vended plot. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge of this court are not based on facts and thus, he erred in allowing the writ applications. Learned counsel further submitted that the pre-emptors were adjoining raiyats of the vended plots and the findings recorded by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, could not have been set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, submitted that learned Single Judge of this court has extensively dealt with the matter and has recorded a finding against the appellants on appreciation of facts and law and since the pre-emption is a weak right, the purchasers can defeat the claims for pre-emption by any lawful means in view of the ratio laid down by this court in the case of Punyadeo Sharma vs. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue and Ors. reported in 2004(3) PLJR 838 and in the case of Abdul Jalil vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2004(4) PLJR 480 . Learned counsel further submitted that the pre-emptors miserably failed to establish to the full satisfaction of the authorities and the court that each one of them was the co-sharer and adjoining raiyat with respect to each and every vended plot. 10. reported in 2004(4) PLJR 480 . Learned counsel further submitted that the pre-emptors miserably failed to establish to the full satisfaction of the authorities and the court that each one of them was the co-sharer and adjoining raiyat with respect to each and every vended plot. 10. From the materials on record and the order impugned, we find that there were sufficient materials before the learned Single Judge of this court to hold that the pre-emptors were not the adjoining raiyats with respect to each and every vended plot. The appellants, in no way, could convince the court with reference to the documents that the pre-emptors were adjoining raiyats with respect to each and every vended plot. 11. The law on the question is well settled that in a proceeding involving multiplicity of pre-emption applications or multiplicity of vended plots, the pre-emptor must establish to the satisfaction of the court that each and every pre-emptor is either a co-sharer or an adjoining raiyat with respect to each and every vended plot. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of Sukhram Singh (supra). 12. In that view of the matter, findings of the learned Single Judge negating the claim of the pre-emptors cannot, therefore, be said to be otherwise bad on facts or on law. 13. In a case of pre-emption under Sec.16(3) of the Act substantial question arises as to whether the pre-emptors are co-sharers or adjoining raiyats with the vended plots and thus, it would not be permissible for this court to go to the other questions to decide the claim of the pre-emptors. 14. For the reasons and discussions aforementioned, we do not find any merit in these Letters Patent Appeal which are accordingly dismissed but no order as to costs.