ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Uggal, counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Vineet Prakash, J.C to S.C (L&C) appearing for the respondent-State. 3. Counsel for the private respondents is absent. 4. This writ petition has been filed for challenging the appellate order dated 09.03.2006 (Annexure-4) passed by the Additional Collector, Giridih in Case No. 7/2002-03/12/2003-04 whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to set-aside the order dated 02.10.2002 (Annexure-3) passed by the Dy. Collector, Land Reforms, Giridih in Land Ceiling Case No. 16/2000-01. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 10.08.2007 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Revision Case No. 38/2006 whereby and whereunder the said authority has been pleased to dismiss the revision application and affirmed the appellate order passed by the Additional Collector, Giridih with certain modifications. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submits as follows:- (a) That the property involved in this case is land of Khata No. 31, Plot no. 81 Area 15.5 decimals out of 31 decimals situated in village Gadikhurd, P.S – Jamua, District – Giridih, Jharkhand. (b) The said property was purchased by father of the petitioner namely Etwari Mahto and Sukar Mahto uncle of the petitioner jointly from Mukat Mahto and Nathu Mahto by virtue of registered sale deed no. 5304 dated 17.04.1964. (c) It is submitted that after purchase Etwari Mahto (since deceased) and Sukar Mahto jointly came in possession of the property and after the death of Etwari Mahto his two sons namely Laxman Mahto (the petitioner) and Basdeo Mahto (brother of the petitioner) stepped into the shoes of their late father and came in physical possession of the property alongwith their uncle Sukar Mahto. (d) Subsequently, there has been mutual partition between Sukar Mahto on the one hand and the petitioner alongwith his brother on the other and 15.5 decimals of land was given to the petitioner and his brother. (e) Subsequently Sukar Mahto sold his 15.5 decimals of land to Sanichar Mahto, Deoki Yadav, Shiv Yadav and Kaleshwar Yadav by a registered sale deed dated 07.08.2000. (e) Subsequently Sukar Mahto sold his 15.5 decimals of land to Sanichar Mahto, Deoki Yadav, Shiv Yadav and Kaleshwar Yadav by a registered sale deed dated 07.08.2000. (f) The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner being the nephew of the Sukar Mahto who was the co-sharer and Raiyat of the land adjoining to the land in question which was transferred as such the petitioner and his brother have full right to exercise preferential right to a pre-emption under Section 16(3) (1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 which was transferred by Sukar Mahto to respondent no. 5 to 9 who are other than co-sharers or co-Raiyats of the adjoining land. (g) Accordingly, the petitioner alongwith his brother Basudeo Mahto filed an application before the concerned authority exercising their right of pre-emption under Section 16 (3)(1) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961 by completing all the legal formalities. (h) This petition was numbered as Land Ceiling Case No. 16 of 2000-01 and the Land Reforms, Deputy Collector, Giridih vide his order dated 02.10.2002 was pleased to allow the prayer of the petitioner and directed the purchasers of the property to execute sale deed in favour of the petitioner within one month from the date of passing of the order failing which the same was to be executed through the process of court. The purchasers of the property or their legal representatives are respondent nos. 5 to 9 in this writ petition. (i) Being aggrieved by this order the respondent nos. 5 to 9 preferred an appeal before the court of Additional Collector, Giridih who vide his order dated 09.03.2006 passed in Case No. 7 of 2002-2003/12/2003-2004 was pleased to set-aside the order dated 02.10.2002 which is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. (j) Being dissatisfied with this order dated 09.03.2006 the petitioner filed Revision petition in the court of Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi under Section 32 of the Act which was numbered as Revision Case No. 38/2006 and was dismissed vide order dated 10.08.2007 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 6. (j) Being dissatisfied with this order dated 09.03.2006 the petitioner filed Revision petition in the court of Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi under Section 32 of the Act which was numbered as Revision Case No. 38/2006 and was dismissed vide order dated 10.08.2007 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the appeal order dated 09.03.2006 as well as the Revisional order dated 10.08.2007 but had no answer to the findings recorded in order dated 09.03.2006 that two of the purchasers of the property namely Deokinandan Yadav and Kaleshwar Yadav had expired during the pendency of the case before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih in Land Ceiling Case No. 16 of 2000-2001, and in spite of such death, they were not substituted. 7. Counsel for the respondent-State submits that the original order passed in Land Ceiling Case No. 16 of 2000-2001 having been passed inter-alia against a dead person namely Deokinandan Yadav and Kaleshwar Yadav, therefore the order of the Appellate Court dated 09.03.2006 as well as the order of the Revisional Court dated 10.08.2007 do not need any interference. 8. After hearing counsel for the parties I find no reasons to interfere with the impugned order passed by the appellate authority namely Additional Collector Giridih in land Ceiling Case No. 7 of 2002-2003/12/2003-2004 as well as the order dated 10.08.2007 passed in Revisional Case No. 38/2006 whereby the order dated 02.10.2002 passed by Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Giridih in land Ceiling case no. 16 of 2000-2001 was set-aside. 9. From the perusal of the order passed by the Revisional authority, it is apparent that the said authority has held that the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms was bad in law and void ab initio, being passed against dead persons. 10. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms had directed a dead person to execute a sale deed in favour of the applicants, and a judgment passed against a dead person is a nullity. This legal proposition of law could not be disputed by the petitioner during the course of arguments. 11. 10. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms had directed a dead person to execute a sale deed in favour of the applicants, and a judgment passed against a dead person is a nullity. This legal proposition of law could not be disputed by the petitioner during the course of arguments. 11. Although, the point raised in para 23 of the writ petition has not been argued by the writ petitioner during the course of argument wherein the petitioner has stated that the petitioner had no knowledge about the death of Deokinandan Yadav, but, this point is also fit to be rejected in view of the fact that from the perusal of the impugned orders it does not appear that the petitioner ever took this point before the authorities below and has taken this point for the first time in this writ petition which cannot be permitted. 12. In view of this settled proposition of law that a judgment passed against a dead person is nullity, I am of the considered view that the order dated 02.10.2002 passed by Deputy Collector, Land Reforms in land Ceiling Case No. 16 of 2000-2001 inter-alia against dead persons who had admittedly expired prior to passing of the judgment is nullity in the eye of law and accordingly the Appellate authority had rightly set-aside the order and the Revisional authority had rightly dismissed the revision against Appellate order. 13. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Revisional Authority. 14. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.