JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Nobody appears on behalf of the Respondents No. 4 & 5 though vakalatnama has been filed on their behalf. None appears for Respondent No. 6 despite service of notice. 3. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9.10.2002 passed by the Addl. Member, Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 93/1999 (Annexure-6 herein) whereby the Revisional Court has set aside the appellate order passed by the Collector concerned upholding the order of the original authority (respondent no. 2). 4. The writ petitioner filed a preemption application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming to be co-sharer and boundary raiyats of the transferred lands in question, i.e. 7 Kathas and 10 Dhurs, appertaining to Plot No. 307 of Khata No. 69 of Mauza-Jhanjhara, P.S.-Parvatta, Distt. Khagaria. 5. According to the writ petitioner, the aforesaid pre-emption application was dismissed on technical ground due to certain defect in LC Form XIII and non-compliance of Rule 19 of the Bihar Land Ceiling Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Rules). The writ petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Addl. Collector, Khagaria, which was allowed holding that there was sufficient compliance of Rule 19 of the Ceiling Rules as well as LC Form XIII. Respondents No. 4 & 5 filed Revision Case No. 93/1999 before the Board of Revenue. Since nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner, the aforesaid Revision Case No. 93/1999 was decided ex parte vide impugned order dated 9.10.2002. However, it is pointed out that there has been non-consideration of the fact as to whether there was sufficient compliance of Rule 19 of the Ceiling Rules and the corresponding LC Form XIII. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the State that there has been no illegality in the ex parte order as the writ petitioner himself was to be blamed for non-appearance at the time of hearing of the case. 7. It is manifest from a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 9.10.2002 that the revisional court has only, prima facie, found the orders of the original authority-appearing to be correct, and that of the appellate authority-not in accordance with law. 8. 7. It is manifest from a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 9.10.2002 that the revisional court has only, prima facie, found the orders of the original authority-appearing to be correct, and that of the appellate authority-not in accordance with law. 8. In my opinion, even on consideration of the only issue as to whether there was sufficient compliance of Rule 19 of the Ceiling Rules or not, the aforesaid order cannot be held to be a reasoned order. In this regard it would be apt to refer to a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Ram Paras Choudhary & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [1993(2) PLJR 260] wherein it has been noted that the Supreme Court in Ram Saran Lal vs. Most Domini Kuer, reported in (1962)2 SCR 474 as well as in the case of Radhakishan L. Toshniwal vs. Shridhar, reported in (1961)1 SCR 248 , while considering the object of Rule 19 of the Ceiling Rules and LC Form XIII, has held that the same are directory instructions and, if there is sufficient compliance thereof, the application can be validly entertained by the Collector. However, from the revisional order it appears that there is completely non-consideration of the fact as to whether there was sufficient compliance of Rule 19 of the Ceiling Rules as well as LC Form XIII. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the revisional order does not hold good and is fit to be set aside. I, accordingly, hereby set aside the revisional order and remit back the matter to the Member, Board of Revenue for determination on the point afresh as to whether there had been sufficient compliance of the directory provisions of Rule 19 of the Ceiliny Rules and LC Form XIII or not after granting opportunity to the parties of being heard if the petitioner produces a certified copy of the order within one month from today. The parties will be free to raise other issues also, if advised, which if raised shall be decided by the revisional authority in accordance with law. 10. It is expected that the revisional authority will take steps for early disposal of this matter preferably within three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order. 11. The writ application, accordingly, stands allowed.