BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA, J.:–In both the writ petitions, issues of fact and issues of law are common and identical, therefore, with the consent of the parties, both the matters have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Ram Swarup Yadav, petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 4034 of 1990 and Suresh Yadav, petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 4035 of 1990 are full brothers. Md. Fazlur Rahman, the original respondent No. 4 in both the writ petitions, who is now dead and has been substituted by his heirs and legal representatives, was the pre-emptor with respect to the vended lands. Monazir Hasan, respondent No. 5 in both the cases is the vendor with respect to the lands under dispute. Respondent No. 5, Monazir Hasan, executed two sale deeds both dated 11.7.1984, one in favour of Ram Swarup Yadav, the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 4034 of 1990 and the other in favour of Suresh Yadav, petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 4035 of 1990. Both the sale deeds were duly registered on 9.11.1984. By the registered sale deed No. 12906, petitioner, Ram Swarup Yadav, purchased 2 bighas 12 kathas 12 dhoors of land of R.S. plot Nos. 67, 275, 276 and 83 situate at village-Guri, P.S.-Bodh Gaya, District-Gaya. Similarly, by registered sale deed No. 12907, petitioner Suresh Yadav also purchased 2 bighas 12 kathas 12 dhoors of land of the same village of plot Nos. 67, 275, 276 and 83. The original respondent No. 4 claiming to be the co-sharer of vendor-respondent No. 5 filed two separate applications under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (in short Land Ceiling Act), which gave rise to Land Ceiling Case Nos. 37 of 1984-85 and 38 of 1984-85 in the court of respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Gaya. 3. After hearing the parties and on consideration of the materials produced by them, respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Gaya, by order dated 10.2.1986 (Annexure-1 in both the writ petitions) rejected the pre-emption case filed on behalf of the original respondent No. 4 by recording a finding of fact that the pre- emptor has not been able to prove that he holds lands adjoining to the vended plots of land. The original respondent No. 4, being aggrieved by the said order, preferred Land Ceiling Appeal Nos. The original respondent No. 4, being aggrieved by the said order, preferred Land Ceiling Appeal Nos. 1 of 1986-87 and 2 of 1986-87, which were finally heard by the respondent District Collector, Gaya, who by order dated 27.8.1989 (Annexure-2) allowed the appeals filed on behalf of the original respondent No. 4 and reversed the order passed by the respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms. The purchasers being aggrieved preferred two separate ceiling revision cases vide Revision Case Nos. 511 of 1989 and 512 of 1989 under Section 32 of the Land Ceiling Act before the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, which were finally heard and by the impugned resolution dated 5.6.1990, the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna dismissed the aforesaid two revision applications and affirmed the orders passed by the appellate authority. Hence, these writ petitions at the behest of the purchasers of the land under dispute. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the cases has submitted that the respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Gaya, after considering all the facts and relevant provisions of Mohammedan Law came to a finding that the original respondent No. 4 was not the boundary raiyat with respect to the vended plots or co-sharer of the vendor and thereafter, the claim of pre-emption was rejected. According to him, such a reasoned order passed by the respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms was set aside and reversed by the District Collector, Gaya, by a most cryptic and non-speaking order. The issues involved has not been properly considered and decided, yet he allowed the appeals filed on behalf of the pre-emptor. He has next contended that patently mechanical order passed by the respondent District Collector, Gaya, has been affirmed by the revisional authority. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original respondent No. 4 and his heirs and legal representatives has strongly opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ petitions. He submits that the appellate authority and revisional authority by recording concurrent findings of fact have allowed the claim of pre-emption after setting aside the order passed by respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Gaya, According to him, there is no dispute that the original respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 5 are the descendents of their common ancestor and the petitioners failed to prove partition among them by metes and bounds. Therefore, the original respondent No. 4 has rightly been held to be a co-sharer of the vendor and claim of pre-emption has rightly been allowed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority. 6. While arguments in both the cases was going on, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the cases has produced the original sale deeds, which are the subject matter of controversy in the present proceeding, for perusal of this Court and to demonstrate that in fact both the petitioners, who are purchasers of the vended land, are having their other plots of land in the vicinity of the vended plots and, therefore, they are not only the purchasers but they are themselves the boundary raiyats of the vended plots. Hence, according to him, the petitioners being the boundary raiyats of the vended plots besides being the purchasers were/are having better rights over the lands in question than that of the original respondent No. 4. 7. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court finds that though the claim of pre-emption made on behalf of the original respondent No. 4 has been rejected by the respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Gaya, but he has not recorded any conclusive findings of fact that pre-emptor is not the co-sharer of the vendor rather findings of fact was recorded that he is not the boundary raiyat with respect to the vended plots. Further this Court finds that on the issues of fact that the purchasers are themselves the boundary raiyats from one side or the other of the vended plots has not been gone into by the respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Gaya. This Court further finds that though the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Gaya, has been reversed and set aside by the respondent District Collector, Gaya, but he has not given valid and cogent reasons for reversing and setting aside the order of the respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Gaya. The basic issues involved in both the pre-emption cases have not been gone into by the respondent District Collector, Gaya, and the said order has been affirmed by the respondent Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, as well. The basic issues involved in both the pre-emption cases have not been gone into by the respondent District Collector, Gaya, and the said order has been affirmed by the respondent Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, as well. Respondent Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, has not taken pains to examine the two registered sale deeds, which are the basis for initiation of both the pre-emption cases. From the facts stated above, it is apparent that all the three authorities under the Land Ceiling Act have not decided all the issues of facts involved with respect to both the pre-emption cases of the original respondent No. 4, yet the order has been passed either in favour of one party or the other. 8. For the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the entire matter requires reconsideration and fresh decision right from the beginning. Consequently, the order dated 10.2.1986 (Annexure-1) passed in Land Ceiling Case Nos. 37 of 1984-85 and 38 of 1984-85 by the respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Gaya, the order dated 27.8.1989 (Annexure-2) passed in Ceiling Appeal Nos. 1 of 1986-87 and 2 of 1986-87 by the respondent District Collector, Gaya, as also the impugned resolution dated 5.6.1990 (Annexure-3) passed in Revision Case No. 511 of 1989 and 512 of 1989 by the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, are hereby set aside and both the matters are remitted back to the respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Gaya, for deciding the same afresh strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 9. It is clarified that the parties shall be at liberty to raise all the issues of law and facts, which are available to them and which have been raised in these present proceedings and that shall be gone into by the authorities under the Land Ceiling Act. 10. It is further clarified that any observation made in the present order shall not be taken to be a finding regarding merits of the case of either party. This was only for the purposes of disposal of these two writ petitions. Any observation made hereinabove shall not prejudice the case of either party. The claims of the parties shall be independently examined by the authorities concerned on the basis of materials available on record or produced by them. 11. This was only for the purposes of disposal of these two writ petitions. Any observation made hereinabove shall not prejudice the case of either party. The claims of the parties shall be independently examined by the authorities concerned on the basis of materials available on record or produced by them. 11. Since both the matters have become very old, therefore, in order to expedite the matters, the petitioners of both the cases and substituted heirs and legal representatives of the original respondent No. 4 are hereby directed to appear before the respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Gaya, with a certified copy of the present order within a maximum period of six weeks from today, whereafter the respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Gaya, shall be obliged to fix a firm date for hearing and deciding the matters afresh strictly in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 12. The respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Gaya, shall make all endeavours to decide the matters afresh at an early date preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the present order. 13. In the result, both the writ petitions succeed to the extent indicated above, but there shall be no order as to costs.