JUDGEMENT CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD and RAVI RANJAN JJ. 1. Respondent-appellant aggrieved by the order dated 3rd of August, 1998 passed by a learned Single Judge allowing the writ application has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. Facts lie in a narrow compass. 3. Appellant is the pre-emptor. Two pieces of land of the same plot was sold by the vendor to the vendee on the same day. Pre-emptor filed application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Ceiling (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, seeking right of pre-emption over the aforesaid land. Despite opposition by the purchaser, pre-emptor succeeded before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Additional Collector and the Board of Revenue. Purchaser challenged those orders in the writ application. By the impugned order aforesaid orders have been quashed and the application filed by the pre-emptor has been dismissed. 4. It is not the case of the pre-emptor that he is the adjoining raiyat of both the pieces of land sold to the purchaser on the same day. However his case is that he is adjoining raiyat of one of the pieces of land. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ application observed that as the purchaser himself has become the adjoining raiyat by virtue of having purchased the adjoining land by two different sale-deeds, the application for pre-emption is not maintainable. 5. Mr. Raju Giri, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that two sale deeds were executed by the vendor to defeat the pre-emptors right. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Udai Narain Singh Vs. State of Bihar [ 2008(2) PLJR 409 ], in which it has been held as follows:- "Hence, purchase of two small pieces of land of the same plot by two separate sale deeds on the same day in effect amounts to fragmentation and obviously defeats the intention of the legislature and is clearly an attempt to defeat the right of the adjoining raiyat or co-sharer to set up his claim of preemption. Purchase of small pieces of land for the same plot by two sale deeds cannot be held to be a bona fide act in absence of any plausible reason and as such the same has to be held to be mala fide act on the part of the purchaser to defeat the provisions of the Act by setting up a false claim of becoming adjoining raiyat of each and other plot by two sale deeds." 6. Mr. Birendra Nath Mishra, appearing on behalf of the purchaser-respondent however contends that the pre-emptor being not the adjoining raiyat of both pieces of land, no right of pre-emption can be claimed. In support of the submission, he has also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Uday Narain Singh (supra) and our attention has been drawn to the following passage from the said judgment:- "Considering various judgments of this Court relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that in cases in which the vendor, vendee and pre-emptors are the same, vendee purchases pieces of land of the same plot by different sale deeds executed and registered on the same day and the pre-emptor claims to be adjoining raiyat of the whole plot or at least portions of the land purchased by the purchaser by different sale deeds, the purchaser cannot set up a claim of having become adjoining raiyat of each and other piece of land purchased on the same day by different sale deeds." (underlining ours) 7. Having appreciated the rival submission, we find substance in the submission of Mr. Mishra. Pre-emptor is not the adjoining raiyat of both pieces of land purchased by different sale deeds. In such situation, he does not have right of preemption. The view which we have taken finds support from the judgment of this Court in the case of Uday Narain Singh (supra). 8. As the pre-emptor has no right for pre-emption, we deem it inappropriate to decide as to whether two sale deeds were executed to defeat his right. Even if, we hold in his favour for that purpose, the preemptor having no right of pre-emption, the appeal must fail. 9. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.