JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J.- The present writ petition has been preferred, challenging the order, passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi, dated 22nd January, 2008 in Revision Case No. 18 of 2007, whereby, an order, passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, dated 24th December, 2004 in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 10 of 2004, has been quashed and set aside and the order, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, dated 5th June, 2004 in Land Ceiling Case No. 1 of 2004 has been upheld. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, has passed an order dated 5th June, 2004, upon an application, preferred by the petitioner under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act, 1961" for the sake of brevity), whereby, the petitioner was claiming a right of preemption. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an adjacent raiyat and. co-sharer of the land, in question, and, therefore, the respondent cannot sell away the property to a third party, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to purchase the land, in question, and, therefore, an application was preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, which was numbered as Land Ceiling Case No. 1 of 2004. The said application, preferred by the petitioner, was dismissed and it was held that the land, in question, is not an agricultural land and, therefore, the right of pre-emption is never accrued to the petitioner. This order was passed on 5th June, 2004, which is at Annexure-2 to the memo of petition. Against this order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Act, 1961 before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, which was allowed vide order dated 24th December, 2004, which is at Annexure-3 to the memo of petition, and the order, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, dated 5th June, 2004, was quashed and set aside. Against this order, a revision application, which was numbered as Revision Case No. 18 of 2007, was preferred by the respondents, which was allowed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, vide order dated 24th January, 2008. Against this order, a revision application, which was numbered as Revision Case No. 18 of 2007, was preferred by the respondents, which was allowed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, vide order dated 24th January, 2008. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, in Revision Case No. 18 of 2007 is absolutely against the provisions of law, mainly for the reason that under Section 32 of the Act, 1961, the limitation period for preferring the revision application is thirty days whereas the revision was preferred after approximately three years and there was no separate application for condonation of delay. No notice was ever issued prior to condonation of delay and while allowing the revision application, in one line the delay has been condoned and, therefore also, the impugned order, passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for tile petitioner that no reasons have been assigned by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, while allowing the revision application, filed by the respondents. The said order is, therefore, a non-speaking order. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the order, passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, vide Annexure-4 to the memo of petition the land, in question, was registered in favour of the present petitioner on 8th December, 2006. Thus, the order passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh (Annexure-3 to the memo of petition) has already been executed by a document at Annexure-4 to the memo of petition, which is dated 8th December, 2006 i.e. much prior to the decision, delivered by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, in the revision application. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the revisional authority. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the revisional authority. Nonetheless, it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the revisional authority has arrived at a decision that the order, passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, is totally a non-speaking order, then the revisional authority ought to have remanded the matter for a fresh decision by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, but, instead of doing so, an order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, has been upheld, without assigned any reason, worth the name, which is an error apparent on the face of the record and, hence also, the order, passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. It is further vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner [original applicant before the Deputy Collector, land Reforms, Hazaribagh, under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961] that in the earlier sale deed, which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of petition dated 20th September, 2003, it has been mentioned that the land, in question, is an agricultural land. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted vehemently that this is the document, which has given birth to the whole dispute, in question. By this very document, respondent no.12 has sold away the property to respondent nos. 5 to 11 and, therefore, an application was preferred by the present petitioner under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961, claiming a right of pre-emption. Thus, as per the document, executed by respondent no.12 himself, the land, in question, is an agricultural land. This aspect of the matter has been lost sight' of by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh and, therefore, let the matter be remanded to the lower appellate court i.e. Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, for a fresh decision in an appeal, already preferred by the present petitioner and let it be decided within the stipulated time, given by this Court, by quashing and setting aside the order, passed by the revisional authority i.e. Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, dated 22nd January, 2008 as well as by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, dated 24th December, 2004. 4. Though respondent nos. 5 to 12 are served upon the notices, nobody appears on their behalf. Learned counsel for the State i.e. respondent nos. 4. Though respondent nos. 5 to 12 are served upon the notices, nobody appears on their behalf. Learned counsel for the State i.e. respondent nos. 1 to 4, who is present before this Court, submitted that the order, passed by the revisional authority is absolutely in accordance with law and facts and once the order, passed by the lower appellate court is a non speaking order, it is bound to be quashed and set aside by the revisional authority. Nonetheless, it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the State that if this Court is remanding the matter to the lower appellate court i.e. Additional 'Collector, Hazaribagh, then a stipulated time be given, so that the appeal, already preferred by the petitioner, can be decided within the said .stipulated time. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and Circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order, passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, dated 22nd January, 2008 (Annexure 5 to the memo of petition) as well as the order, passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, dated 24th. December, 2004 (Annexure-3 to the memo of petition) mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) It appears that the present petitioner being an adjacent raiyat of the lands, mentioned below, is claiming right of pre-emption under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961. SI. No. Khata No. Plot No. Area 1. 142 625 0.03% Acres 2. 124 826 0.03 Acres 3. 06 825 0.03 Acres 4. 59 828 0.04 Acres (ii) It appears that the original owner, which is respondent no. 12 in this writ petition, sold away the property to respondent nos. 5 to 11 vide document dated 8th December, 2006 (Annexure-1 to the memo of petition), whereby, the petitioner was compelled to prefer an application before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, claiming a right of preemption over the aforesaid four different lands. Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 reads as under:- 16. Restriction on future acquisition by transfer, etc. 5 to 11 vide document dated 8th December, 2006 (Annexure-1 to the memo of petition), whereby, the petitioner was compelled to prefer an application before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, claiming a right of preemption over the aforesaid four different lands. Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 reads as under:- 16. Restriction on future acquisition by transfer, etc. xx xx xx (3)(i) When any transfer of land is made after the commencement of the Act to any person other than co-sharer or a raiyat of adjoining land, any co-sharer of the transferor or any raiyat holding land adjoining the land transferred, shall be entitled, within three months of the date of registration of the document, of transfer, to make an application before the Collector in the prescribed manner for the transfer of the land to him on the terms and conditions contained in the said deed: Provided that no such application shall be entertained by the Collector unless the purchase money together with a sum equal to ten percent thereof is deposited in the prescribed manner within the said period. (ii) On such deposit being made the co-sharer or the raiyat shall be entitled to be put in possession of the land irrespective of the fact that the application under clause (i) is pending for decision: Provided that where the application is rejected, the co-sharer or the raiyat, as the case may be, shall be evicted from the land and possession thereof shall be restored to the transferee and the transferee shall be entitled to be paid a sum equal to ten percent of the purchase money out of the deposit made under clause (i). (iii) If the application is allowed, the Collector shall by an order direct the transferee to convey the land in favour of the applicant• by executing and registering a document of transfer within a period to be specified in the order and, if he neglects or refuses to comply with the direction, the procedure prescribed in Order 21, rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), shall be, so far as may be, followed." (iii) In view of the aforesaid subsection (3) of Section 16 of the' Act, 1961, an adjacent raiyat is entitled to the right of pre-emption upon a land, in question. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sale deed, which has been entered into between respondent no. 12 and respondent nos. 5 to 11, which is dated 20th September, 2003 (Annexure-1 to the memo of petition), it has been referred that the land, in question, is an agricultural land. Thus, as per the original owner himself, the land, in question, is an agricultural land. (iv) It appears that before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents and, therefore, by a non-speaking order the appeal was allowed in favour of the present petitioner. The said order is at Annexure-3 to the memo of petition. No reasons, whatsoever, have been assigned by the lower appellate court, while passing the order dated 24th December, 2004. (v) It appears that being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a revision application was preferred by the respondents before the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, being Revision Case No. 18 of 2007. While allowing the revision application vide order dated 22nd January, 2008, it has been held by the revisional authority that the order of the Additional Collector is totally a non speaking order and, therefore, the said order is hereby quashed and set aside •and the order, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, is hereby upheld. Thus, without assigning any reason that how the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, is true, correct, legal and in consonance with the facts of the case, the revisional authority has also passed the order dated 22nd January, 2008. (vi) Thus, both the lower appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have passed the orders, without assigned any reasons and, therefore, I hereby quash and set aside the order, passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, dated 24th December, 2004, as well as the order, passed by ( the Member, Board of Revenue, ) Jharkhand, dated 22nd January, 2008 and the matter is remanded to the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, to decide the appeal, already preferred by the petitioner, afresh in accordance with law and after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the parties to the appeal. The appeal, already preferred by the present petitioner before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, is hereby revived. The appeal, already preferred by the present petitioner before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, is hereby revived. The Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, will take a decision afresh as early as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a document, which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of petition and submitted that the document, whereby, sale has been executed between respondent no.12 and respondent nos. 5 to 11, itself refers that the land, in question, is an agricultural land. 7. Be that as it may, this question will also be decided by the, Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, within the' aforesaid time limit, given by this Court. The issues raised by the petitioner, on merits, against the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh, are kept open to be decided by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, in' the appeal, already preferred by the present petitioner under Section 30 of the Act, 1961. Thus, the order, passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, as well as the order, passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, which are Annexures-3 and 5 respectively, are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the additional Collector, Hazaribagh, for a fresh decision. This writ petition is, thus, allowed to the aforesaid extent and is hereby disposed of. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stay, granted by this Court vide order dated 4th November, 2009 nay be directed to continue for sometime, till an application for stay is preferred and decided by the lower appellate court i.e. Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, in the pending appeal, preferred by the present petitioner. 9. In view of the aforesaid submission, the stay granted by this Court vide order dated 4th November, 2009 is hereby directed to continue till an application for stay, so preferred by the petitioner, is decided by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, in the pending appeal, preferred by the present petitioner, on a condition that stay application will be preferred by the petitioner in the pending appeal before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court. If no such application is preferred for stay, the stay granted by this Court will come to an end, after the two weeks' period is over after receiving the certified copy of the order of this Court.