ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. LA. No. 1313 of 2016 The present interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 49 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application, there are reasonable reasons for condoning the delay in preferring this appeal. We therefore, condone the delay in preferring this L.P.A. No. 47 of 2016. 3. This Interlocutory Application is allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 47 of 2016 1. By consent of the learned counsels for both the sides, this Letters Patent Appeal is taken up for hearing. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4966 of 2003 dated 4th November, 2015 whereby, the writ petition preferred by these appellants was dismissed. 3. These appellants are original petitioners who are claiming right of pre-emption under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. 4. It appears that the property in question was originally owned by one Mr. Bhuban Mandal, who expired in the year 1940 leaving behind sons and daughters. 5. There are two types of genealogy, presented by these appellants as well as by the respondents. 6. It appears from the facts of the case that the land in question was sold by respondent No. 5 to respondent No. 6 by registered sale-deed dated 10th September, 2001 and these appellants are claiming right of pre-emption to purchase the said land being co-sharers of the property in question. This is a highest case of these appellants. 7. It has also been argued out by the counsel for the appellants that nobody can pass a better title than what they are having. 8. Respondent No. 5 was never an owner of the property in question as on the date on which the sale of the land was carried out by her. 7. It has also been argued out by the counsel for the appellants that nobody can pass a better title than what they are having. 8. Respondent No. 5 was never an owner of the property in question as on the date on which the sale of the land was carried out by her. In the revenue entry the name of respondent No.5 was never mutated even otherwise also, consistent plea has been taken by these appellants right from the Court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad, then before Additional Collector, Dhanbad, then before Board of Revenue, Jharkhand and before the learned Single Judge that respondent No.5 was never a wife of Ras Mohan Mandal. Thus, neither she is a legal heir of Ras Mohan Mandal nor she is a legally wedded wife and hence, her sons and daughters cannot be the co-sharers of the property in question nor can respondent No. 5 be said to be the co-sharer nor she is owner of the property in question and as such, respondent No.5 has no right to sell the property to respondent No.6. Her name has never been mutated in the revenue entries. Totally third party has sold away the property. 9. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the aforesaid aspects of the matter have not been property appreciated at all, neither by Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad while passing order at Annexure-3 nor by Additional Collector, Dhanbad while passing order at Annexure-4 nor by Board of Revenue, State of Jharkhand while passing order at Annexure-5 and these aspects of the matter have also not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by these appellants being W.P. (C) No. 4966 of 2003 vide judgment dated 04.11.2015. Infact, respondent No. 5 has no power, jurisdiction and authority to sell away the property of which she was never an owner, in the eye of law and if at all she has power to sell it away it must have been offered to these appellants. These appellants want to file a suit partition before the learned trial Court where it will come on surface that whether respondent No.5 is a co-sharer of the property or not. This liberty may be reserved with these appellants to file a suit of partition. 10. These appellants want to file a suit partition before the learned trial Court where it will come on surface that whether respondent No.5 is a co-sharer of the property or not. This liberty may be reserved with these appellants to file a suit of partition. 10. Thus, it appears, after healing the counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, that neither the name of respondent No. 5 nor names of these appellants is mutated in the revenue entry, as on date of sale from respondent No.5 to respondent No.6, the land in question which is dated 10th September, 2001, prima facie, respondent No.5 name was never mutated in the revenue entry and respondent No.5 has yet to establish her legal light upon the property in question. Respondent No. 5 cannot pass any title unless, respondent No. 5 possesses the same. These aspects of the matter have lost sight of by all the authorities below as well as by the learned Single Judge. Nonetheless, we hereby, reserve the light of these appellants to prefer a civil suit as per Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the competent trial Court. 11. The observations made by the learned single Judge will not come in the way of these appellants when suit of partition/title suit is filed by these appellants. The observations made in this order will also not cause any prejudice to the appellants as well as to the respondents. 12. With these observations, this Letter Patent Appeal is hereby disposed of. Appeal disposed of