JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Ramit Satender, counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is submitted that service of notice upon the respondents is complete. 2. Heard Mr. Sahil, JC to SC(L&C) appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. No body appears on behalf of the respondent nos.6 and 7. 4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: (a) For quashing of the order dated 17.05.2003 (Annexure-4) passed in Pre-emption Case No.06/2002-03. (b) For quashing of the order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure-6/1) passed in Pre-emption Revision Case No.29 of 2007, whereby according to the petitioner the Member, Board of Revenue has illegally allowed the revision preferred by respondent no.6 by setting-aside the reasoned order dated 31.10.2006 passed by Additional Collector, Ranchi in pre-emption Appeal No.07 R-15/2004-05 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submits as under: (a) The petitioner is pre-emptor in connection with the property sold by Respondent no.7 to respondent no.6 vide registered deed of sale bearing Sale-Deed No.7344 dated 28.07.2000 registered before the District Sub-Registration Office, Ranchi. In the said sale-deed at Page No.5, the petitioner’s name has been mentioned as adjoining raiyat in the western side and on the basis of the same, the petitioner submits that admittedly the petitioner is the adjoining raiyat. Soon after getting knowledge of the aforesaid fact, he applied for the certified copy of the sale deed and after obtaining the above deed he filed his claim for pre-emption under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. The petitioner submits that the said pre-emption case was registered as Pre-emption Case No.29 of 2002. (b) The pre-emption case was dismissed vide order dated 25.06.2002 on account of non-deposition of the purchase money together with 10% of the total consideration amount as per the mandate of Section 16(3) of the Act. (c) After dismissal of the Pre-emption Case No.29 of 2002 vide order dated 25.06.2002, the petitioner filed a fresh case being Pre-emption Case No.6/2002-03 wherein the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms had directed the petitioner to deposit the purchase money together with a sum of 10% and thereafter, the petitioner deposited the same. (c) After dismissal of the Pre-emption Case No.29 of 2002 vide order dated 25.06.2002, the petitioner filed a fresh case being Pre-emption Case No.6/2002-03 wherein the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms had directed the petitioner to deposit the purchase money together with a sum of 10% and thereafter, the petitioner deposited the same. (d) The said petition was admitted by the order dated 25.10.2002 and the delay in filing the petition which was for about one month, was condoned vide order dated 25.10.2002. (e) However, on one date when the petitioner did not appear, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms vide order dated 17.05.2003 dismissed the application on the ground of res-judicata as well as on the ground of limitation although the petition for condonation of delay was earlier allowed by the same authority. (f) Against this, the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority being Pre. Appeal No.07 R-15/2004-05 which was allowed vide order dated 31.10.2006 by the appellate authority being Additional Collector, Ranchi by a speaking order after discussing the issue involved i.e. res-judicata and limitation. (g) Against the appellate order, the respondent no.6 preferred the revision which was numbered as Revision Case No.29 of 2007. (h) It is specific statement made by the writ petitioner at para 16 of the writ petition that the petitioner was never served notice which is apparent from the order-sheet and accordingly, an ex-parte order was passed against the petitioner. (i) Counsel for the petitioner referring to the order dated 07.12.2007 submits that on 07.12.2007, the counsel for the respondent no 6 (petitioner in the revision case) was present but the petitioner (opposite party in the revision case) was not present either in person or through his counsel and thereafter, an order was passed fixing 18.12.2007 as the next date of hearing with a direction to issue notices upon the petitioner (opposite party in the revision case) and it was clearly mentioned that if the petitioner (opposite party in the revision case) does not appear on the next date of hearing i.e. on 18.12.2007, the case will be decided on the basis of the materials on record. On 18.12.2007, it appears that counsel for the respondent no. 6 (petitioner in the revision case) had prayed for time and the matter was directed to be posted on 27.12.2007 with a direction to issue notices to the parties concerned. On 18.12.2007, it appears that counsel for the respondent no. 6 (petitioner in the revision case) had prayed for time and the matter was directed to be posted on 27.12.2007 with a direction to issue notices to the parties concerned. (j) Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no order-sheet regarding service report or regarding service of notice upon the petitioner (opposite party in the revision case) and infact, the notice was never served upon the petitioner. He further submits that ultimately the impugned order dated 28.12.2007 was passed without hearing the petitioner. (k) Counsel for the petitioner on merits submits that in view of the judgments passed by this Hon’ble Court in the judgments reported in (1999) 2 PLJR 52 and (1991) 1 PLJR 354, it is apparent that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the proceeding under Section 16(3) of the Act and further submits that as the pre-emption application bearing Pre-emption Case No.29 of 2002 was not dismissed on merits and the same was dismissed on account of non-filing of the statutory amount under the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Act, therefore, the said order cannot act as res-judicata to subsequent proceedings. Accordingly, the counsel for the petitioner submits that both the issues on the point of limitation as well as on the point of res-judicata has been wrongly decided by the Court. (l) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional court wrongly held that the Additional Collector does not have the power to condone the delay in filing the pre-emption application over and above the period prescribed under the said Act. (m) So far as other issue regarding res-judicata is concerned, counsel for the petitioner submits that if he would have had the opportunity to appear before the revisional court he would have satisfied the revisional court that the principles of res-judicata does not apply vis-à-vis an earlier proceeding as the issue was never decided in the earlier proceeding in view of the fact that the application itself was not maintainable under Section 16(3) of the Act on account of non deposit of the statutory amount. 6. Counsel for the private respondents are not appearing. 7. Counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the revisional court has rightly decided the issue and the same does not require any interference. 6. Counsel for the private respondents are not appearing. 7. Counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the revisional court has rightly decided the issue and the same does not require any interference. However the counsel could not dispute the circumstances under which the ex-parte impugned order against the petitioner was passed by the revisional authority. 8. So far as the point of limitation is concerned, the issue has already been settled by the judgments relied upon by the petitioner reported in 1999 (2) PLJR 52 that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to an application for pre-emption. It has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme court in judgment dated 21.08.2001 ( BIBI SALMA KHATOON vs STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS ) being Civil Appeal No. 5645 of 2001 corresponding to Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5460 of 1998 while interpreting the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 that since the Act does not expressly exclude section 4 to 14 of the Limitation Act, they apply to the application under section 16(3) of the aforesaid Act. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure-6/1) has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner deserves an opportunity to be heard by the revisional court. Accordingly the impugned order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure-6/1) passed in Pre-emption Revision Case No.29 of 2007, by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand is hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted to the said authority for passing fresh order after hearing the parties in accordance with law preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and direction.