JUDGMENT : This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 11.03.2019 passed in L.C. Revision No.1/02, is under challenge. 2. Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two issues:- first the issue estoppel has not been taken into consideration by the Member Board of Revenue and secondly on merit holding the pre-emptor as the adjacent raiyat is not based upon the cogent evidence. 3. Mr. Vineet Prakash, learned A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I appearing for the State-Respondent has disputed both the grounds agitated by the petitioner on the ground that issue estoppel is not worth to be considered, since the matter has been reopened on an order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in pursuance thereto fresh adjudication has been made by the Member Board of Revenue and as such, it will be said to be an order on remand on the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court and so far as the merit is concerned, submission has been made that the Member Board of Revenue after considering the report submitted with respect to the status of the land as also the pre-emptors as has been recorded by the Deputy Collector Land Reform in the order dated 11.04.1998, the finding has been recorded by affirming the views recorded therein. 4. This Court, in order to appreciate their arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties, deem it fit and proper to narrate certain factual background of this case which is being referred hereinbelow:- (i) Sawashri Ganauri Choudhary, Rameshwar Choudhary and Lachu Choudhary executed a sale deed on 19.07.1989 for 3.23 acres of plot no.48 and 0.08 acres of plot no.204 under khata no.33 in village-Lokiya in favour of Smt. Shakhiya Devi and the same was registered vide registered sale deed no.6418 dated 06.06.1997, the deed of rectification dated 13.09.1989 was executed for correction of boundaries of plot no.48 area 3.23 acres in the above sale deed by which correct boundaries was shown as in North-Sukar Mahto, South, East and West-Jungle Jhari. The same was registered vide rectification deed no.7595 dated 13.10.2000. The same was registered vide rectification deed no.7595 dated 13.10.2000. Sakhia Devi also built a house in plot no.204 of the purchased land sometime in the year 1993 and was living in the said house; (ii) Pre-emptors namely Gango Mahto and Bulaki Mahto has filed an application before the L.R.D.C., Barhi on 03.09.1997 invoking the jurisdiction of the authority concerned under the provision of Section 16(3) of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”, 1961), claiming themselves as adjoining raiyat of Shakhiya Devi, the pre-emptors have also claimed that they have their land in the South and East of plot no.48 and similarly they stated that in the North of plot no.204, the wife of one of the pre-emptors of land which is in the cultivable possession of the pre-emptors; (iii) The L.R.D.C., Barhi on the said application has directed for spot inquiry and basis upon this, pre-emption application was allowed on 11.04.1998, against which, an appeal has been preferred before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh being L.C. Appeal No.1/1998, who after hearing the parties has set aside the order dated 11.04.1998 vide his order dated 05.12.2001; (iv) Being aggrieved to the said order, the pre-emptors have filed a revision before the Member Board of Revenue and the revisional authority held that pre-emptors are not an adjacent raiyat of plot no.204 and hence partial pre-emption is not permissible with a further conclusive finding that since the pre-emptors are neither co-sharers of the transferors nor are they adjacent raiyats of all the vended plots, therefore, the revisional authority has declined to interfere with the conclusion of the appellate order. The pre-emptors have filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No.4517 of 2002 which was dismissed vide order dated 13.05.2003 mainly on the issue that pre-emption petition was not filed within the stipulated period of 3 months as provided under “The Act, 1961”, since sale deed was registered on 19.07.1987 and the pre-emption application was filed on 03.09.1997. The aforesaid order was challenged in Intra Court Appeal before this Court in L.P.A. No.389 of 2003 which was also dismissed vide order dated 23.08.2004 concurring with the conclusion along with the finding recorded by the writ Court. The aforesaid order was challenged in Intra Court Appeal before this Court in L.P.A. No.389 of 2003 which was also dismissed vide order dated 23.08.2004 concurring with the conclusion along with the finding recorded by the writ Court. (v) The pre-emptors have approached to the Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India being Civil appeal No.1779 of 2008, wherein vide order/judgment dated 09.08.2017, the order passed by the Member Board of Revenue as also the consequent order of this Court passed by the writ Court as also the Intra Court Appeal, has been set aside and the matter has been remitted before the Member Board of Revenue on the ground that the claim of the pre-emptors is with respect to two separate plot nos.48 and 204 but the Member Board of Revenue has not adjudicated the claim of its validity and sustainability in respect of both plots taken separately and therefore, the Board since has given a finding that the appellants/claimant did not have claimed in respect of plot no.204 and declined to go into the reliability of claim pertaining to plot no.48 and therefore, has been pleased to come to the conclusive finding that there is miscarriage of justice and claim for pre-emption made by the appellate has not been gone into at all and as such by allowing the appeal it has been remanded back to the Board of Revenue for a decision afresh on the claim for pre-emption made by the appellate Gango Mahto and Bulaki Mahto in respect of plot no.48 only. 5. In consequence of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Member Board of Revenue has started the hearing fresh and concurred with the finding recorded by the Deputy Collector, Land Reform in the original order vide order dated 11.03.2019 which is under challenge in this writ petition on the ground as has been agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner as stated hereinabove. 6. The first contention which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue estoppel and to that effect reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Hope Plantations Ltd. Vs. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and Anr., reported in (1999) 5 SCC 590 . 6. The first contention which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue estoppel and to that effect reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Hope Plantations Ltd. Vs. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and Anr., reported in (1999) 5 SCC 590 . This Court, before answering this issue, deem it fit and proper to appreciate the content and finding of the judgment as has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention. It is evident from the factual aspect involved in the said judgment, wherein the issue of issue estoppel has been considered on the factual background i.e., the appellant has purchased the land mainly on Tea Planation from South India Tea Company Limited and as per the provision contained in the Kerala Land Reforms (Ceiling) Rules, 1970 which provided the forms in which the return/statement is required to be filed by a person having land in excess of “ceiling area” fixed under the Act or claiming exemption of any land is not falling within the “ceiling area” at all. The predecessor-in-title of the appellant (South India Tea Estate Company Ltd.) filed return on 28.03.1970 before the Land Board in relation to the tea plantation held by it. The total area of the land held by the appellant is 4251.19 acres. Out of this, an area of 267.16 acres was sought to be surrendered and therefore, the claim for exemption under four heads, namely: (1) Tea Plantation; (2) Roads and Buildings; (3) Area for Fuel Trees; and (4) Other Agricultural Lands Interspersed and vide order dated 25.06.1976, the Taluk Land Board disallowed substantial claims of the appellant for exemption as “fuel areas” and “rested tea area”, the matter was taken up by the appellant to the Kerala High Court in revision which vide order dated 15.03.1977 restored the claims made by the appellant under those two heads and under the heads “Roads and Buildings” and “Other Agricultural Lands Interspersed” remanded the case to the Taluk Land Board for re-determination of the ceiling area. The Taluk Land Board and the State of Kerala which being aggrieved appealed to this Court regarding the claims of exemption under the heads “fuel area” and “rested tea area” and the Hon’ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 02.05.1979 allowed the appeal and restored the orders of the Taluk Land Board and on remand, the Taluk Land Board again took up the matter after the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court and considered the question of Interspersed agricultural land as the appellant has now pitched its claim on that basis as well. The Taluk Land Board vide order dated 26.07.1980 decided the matter in favour of the appellant. However, there was a dissenting view of the Chairman of the Taluk Land Board, aggrieved with the same, the State of Kerala has challenged the order before the Kerala High Court in revision and vide order dated 06.11.1984, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board as regards the “fuel area” and “rested area” by negating the plea of the appellant that there was any plantation of Cardamom within the fuel area existing earlier to 01.04.1964 as also set aside the finding of the Taluk Land Board as regards the claim of exemption for the lands interspersed within the boundaries of the area of plantation within plantation crops and directed the Taluk Land Board to re-determine the question afresh if it fulfilled the requirement of Section 2(44) of the Act and also keeping in view the observations made in the judgment. The appeal filed by the State against the earlier order dated 15.03.1977 of the High Court came to be decided on 02.05.1979 and the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the issue involved therein has answered the same by directing the Cardamom Board to appoint one of its Senior Expert Officers to inspect the area, who will on inspection submit a report before the Hon’ble Apex Court, in pursuance thereto a report was submitted, however, an objection was also filed and in that pretext the consideration has been made by the Hon’ble Apex court by taking aid of the judgment in the case of Y.B. Patil Vs. Y.L. Patil, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 66 , wherein the principles of res judicata which can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings rather they also get attracted in subsequent stage of the said proceeding. Y.L. Patil, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 66 , wherein the principles of res judicata which can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings rather they also get attracted in subsequent stage of the said proceeding. Once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent stage of that proceeding. The principle of issue estoppel has also been taken into consideration as would appear from para-26 thereof, wherein it has been laid down that the principles of estoppel and res judicata are based on public policy and justice, doctrine of res judicata is often treated as a branch of the law of estoppel. Rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question over again even though the determination may even be demonstratedly wrong. When the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgment and are estopped from questioning it. These two aspects are “cause of action estoppel” and “issue estoppel”. These two aspects have been narrated therein by holding these two terms of common law origin and once an issue has been finally determined, parties cannot subsequently in the said suit advance arguments or adduce further evidence directed to showing that the issue was wrongly determined. The only remedy is to approach the Higher Forum, if available. The determination of the issue between the parties gives rise to the issue estoppel, which operates in any subsequent proceedings in the same suit in which the issue has been determined. It also operates in subsequent suits between the same parties in which the same issue arises. The issue estoppel was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gopal Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (1970) 2 SCC 905 , wherein it has been laid down that the basic principle underlying the rule of issue estoppel is that the same issue of fact and law must have been determined in the previous litigation. This Court after going across the aforesaid judgment has found that the question of principle of res judicata and issue of estoppel has been dealt with in detail. 7. This Court after going across the aforesaid judgment has found that the question of principle of res judicata and issue of estoppel has been dealt with in detail. 7. So far as the case in hand is concerned, it is the admitted position herein that while invoking the jurisdiction of the revenue authority as conferred power under Section 16 of the Act, 1961, an application was filed by the person claiming to have pre-emptory right, the same has been allowed by the original authority. However, the same has been reversed by the appellate as well as the revisional authority which was confirmed by the writ Court as also in the Intra Court Appeal. The matter went before the Hon’ble Apex Court under its appellate jurisdiction as conferred under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the same was converted to an appeal and thereafter the order passed by the Member Board of Revenue and the order of this Court both under writ jurisdiction and the Intra Court Appeal, has been set aside. 8. The matter has been remitted before the Member Board of Revenue for passing order afresh, for ready reference the operative part of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is being referred as hereunder:- “…. …. Having considered the matter, it is clear that there was no question of the appellant-claimants having claimed any right of partial pre-emption. The claim of pre-emption was clearly made in respect of two separate plots of land viz., Plot Nos.48 and 204. It was necessary for the Board to adjudicate whether the claim was valid and tenable in respect of both plots taken separately. The Board, instead of doing so, merely gave a finding that the appellants-claimants did not have any claim in respect of plot no.204 and declined to go into the tenability of the claim vis-à-vis Plot No.48. We are of the view that this has caused a clear miscarriage of justice and the claim for pre-emption made by the appellants has not been gone into at all. Further, the High Court committed an error in confirming such a view taken by the Board. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to allow this appeal and remand the matter back to the Board of Revenue for a decision afresh on the claim for pre-emption made by the appellants viz, Gango Mahto and Bulaki Mahto, in respect of plot no.48 only. Further, the High Court committed an error in confirming such a view taken by the Board. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to allow this appeal and remand the matter back to the Board of Revenue for a decision afresh on the claim for pre-emption made by the appellants viz, Gango Mahto and Bulaki Mahto, in respect of plot no.48 only. We order accordingly.” 9. The question of res judicata or issue estoppel will not come into the way for the reason that when the order itself has been set aside by the Higher Forum i.e., in this case by the Hon’ble Apex Court by remitting the matter before the Member Board of Revenue, it will be said to be initiation of proceeding afresh from the stage of revision and that is the specific direction passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the order as referred hereinabove, however at the risk of repetition the same is being reiterated “We, therefore, consider it appropriate to allow this appeal and remand the matter back to the Board of Revenue for a decision afresh on the claim for pre-emption made by the appellants viz, Gango Mahto and Bulaki Mahto, in respect of plot no.48 only.” This specific direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court has been accepted by the petitioner since he has participated in the proceeding initiated afresh by the Member Board of Revenue, therefore, neither the question of res judicata nor the issue estoppel would come into play, in view of the specific remand order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, the contention which has been raised in this regard by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not acceptable to this Court, accordingly, the same is rejected. 10. Therefore, the contention which has been raised in this regard by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not acceptable to this Court, accordingly, the same is rejected. 10. So far as the issue on merit is concerned, admittedly when the application was made by the petitioner claiming to have pre-emptory right as per the provision of the Act, 1961, who have claimed to be an adjacent raiyat of plot nos.204 and 48 to that effect a thorough inquiry has been directed to be conducted by the Deputy Collector Land Reform, upon which, the Circle Officer has submitted a report by visiting the spot and has submitted a report to the effect that in respect of plot no.48, there is land of Bulaki Mahto who has purchased the same through the registered sale deed no.2770 dated 18.02.1968, likewise, the actual boundary of the plot no.204 comprising of an area of 8 decimal in North of it, there is a passage and land of Gango Mahto, in South, house of Bandu Mahto, Runiya Mahto and Ashu Mahto, while in the South, the land of Shakhiya Devi, the purchaser and in East, the land of Badhni Devi and in West, the land of Shakhiya Devi found mentioned. 11. It has further came out on record that the land situated in East to the land of Ashu Mahto is being cultivated by the family members of the Shakhiya Devi but no documentary evidence to that effect was presented substantiating their title over the land in question which has been referred in the original order by making reference of an affidavit dated 28.01.1998, one Gauri Devi wife of Laldhari Mahto has sold out the landed property through registered sale deed no.6826 dated 26.08.1991 in favor of Smt. Bundiya Devi and 15 years before, she has taken consideration money of the same by giving the raiyati right in her favour and therefore as per the said contents of the said affidavit, the Gango Mahto has been found to be in possession of the land in question since the year 1960 for cultivating the same. Reference of the rectification has also been made therein that is the main argument of the petitioner but the finding has been recorded to that effect that the rectification is made in the original deed, the same will relate back to the creation of the original deed and as such there is no material change in the claim of the pre-emptors. The original authority therefore, has come to the conclusive finding that the claimant has been found to be the adjoining raiyat of plot nos.204 and 48. 12. The appellate authority while passing the order has not taken into consideration the conclusive finding recorded by the Deputy Collector Land Reform, so far as it relates to declaring the claimant having pre-emptory right pertaining to plot no.48 being in the capacity of adjacent raiyat to the aforesaid plot and thereby disbelieving the finding recorded in that respect has cancelled the order which has been confirmed by the revisional authority. The Member Board of Revneue while adjudicating the dispute pertaining to the capacity of the claimant of his status of the adjoining raiyat of the plot no.48 as has been directed to be decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court has found by discussing in detail at para 6 thereof holding therein that the land of the Gango Mahto is adjacent to the plot no.48, such finding has been reached by taking into consideration the spot inspection report as has been recorded in the order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reform and by narrating it in the order to the effect that in the North of the plot, the house of Shukar Mahto, in West the house of Bulaki Mahto as also some forest land and in the South-East, the land of Gango Mahto and some Gairmazarua land, therefore, Gango Mahto the pre-emptor held to be the adjoining raiyat of the plot no.48. 13. This Court is of the view that since Member Board of Revenue has considered the fact finding as recorded by the revisional authority which has been passed upon the spot inquiry conducted by the Circle Officer and the same report has not been disputed by the petitioner, therefore, there is no reason to differ with the inquiry conducted by the Circle Officer having been authorized in this regard by the competent authority i.e., the Deputy Collector Land Reform. 14. 14. This Court, therefore, is of the view that since the order dated 11.03.2019 is based upon the fact finding based upon a spot inspection report and as such the same cannot be reversed by sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing writ of certiorari, in view of the fact that the writ Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is only supposed to interfere with the fact finding, if it is perverse or it is without jurisdiction, the question of jurisdiction is not an issue so far as the perversity is concerned, the same is to be tested on the basis of the factual aspect and if any fact having been placed by the parties, if not properly been appreciated and even not been appreciated, it will be said to suffer from perversity. Reference in this regard may be made to the Judgment rendered in the case of Syed Yakoob Vs. Radhakrishnan reported in A.I.R. 1964 SC 477, wherein at paragraph no.7 their Lordships have been pleased to held as follows:- “The question about the limits of jurisdiction High Courts in issuing a writ certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals : these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal Acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, 1955 (1) SCR 1104 : ((S) AIR 1955 SC 233 ); Nagendra Nath v. Commr. Of Hills Division, 1958 SCR 1240 : ( AIR 1958 SC 398 ) and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1960 SC 1168 . 15. This Court after going across the impugned order as also scrutinizing the order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reform, is of the view that this order is not in such a nature where it can be said that it suffers from perversity. 16. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, accordingly, dismissed.