JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 06.01.2016 passed in Revision Case No.06 of 2014 by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand is under challenge, whereby and whereunder the order dated 02.04.2012 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms in L.C. Case No.05 of 2009-10 and by Additional Collector, Ramgarh dated 04.11.2013 passed in L.C. Appeal No.01 of 2012-13 by which the application filed under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 has been reversed under the revisional jurisdiction. 2. It is the case of the petitioners as per the pleading made in the writ petition that they being co-sharer and adjacent raiyat have got first right for transfer of the land in their favour in order to achieve and spirit of the Act, 1961 but ignoring the same the lands in question has been transferred by the respondent no.7 in favour of respondent nos.5 and 6 by virtue of registered sale deed dated 22.07.2009 vide Annexure-1 which led the petitioner to make an application under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 which as per the provision and condition stipulated therein before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms which has been registered as L.C. Case No.05 of 2009-10. After being called upon by the authority the respondent nos. 5 to 7 have appeared and contested the case. The original authority has passed the order on 02.04.2012 holding the petitioners as co-sharer and adjacent raiyat of the land in question and accordingly passed direction in exercise of power conferred under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 to transfer the land in favour of the petitioner through the registered sale deed. The order passed by the original authority has been challenged before the Additional Collector, Ramgarh but vide order dated 04.11.2013 he has refused to interfere with the finding and the direction as contained in the order passed by the original authority, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ramgarh. The respondent nos.5 and 6 being aggrieved with the aforesaid two orders have invoked the jurisdiction of the revisional authority by filing revision before the Member, Board of Revenue which has been registered as Revision Case No.06 of 2014. The respondent nos.5 and 6 being aggrieved with the aforesaid two orders have invoked the jurisdiction of the revisional authority by filing revision before the Member, Board of Revenue which has been registered as Revision Case No.06 of 2014. The revisional authority has reversed both the orders passed by the original as also the appellate authority against which the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the original authority has not appreciated by considering the factual dispute by discarding the specific finding recorded in the orders about the status of the petitioners of adjacent raiyat and the co-sharer. Further, submission has been made that the revisional authority by putting reliance upon the sale deed dated 22.07.2009 has reversed the finding by discarding the entry made in the record of rights i.e. the Survey Khatian, therefore, the finding suffers from perversity and the same may be quashed. 4. Learned A.C to G.P-IV for the State of Jharkhand has submitted by referring to para 24 of the counter affidavit that the revisional authority has come out with the specific stand that the respondent nos.5 and 6 are vendee, neither co-sharer nor adjacent raiyat. 5. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 and 6 has vehemently opposed the ground/submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the stand taken by the State in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit. He submits by referring to the stand taken by him that since the petitioners have relinquished his right over the property in question, the meaning of the relinquishment that he has foregone his right over the landed property and once foregone, there is no question of having status of adjacent raiyat or co-sharer. The specific issue has been raised before the original as also the revisional authority but the same has not been considered and merely by going through the Survey Khatian, the finding has been recorded by the original authority holding the petitioners as adjacent raiyat and the co-sharer, he submits that it might be a situation that in the name of predecessor and interest of the petitioners is in the Survey Khatian but the question is, when the right has already been relinquished, the finding in the name of petitioners in the Survey Khatian does not give status of adjacent raiyat or co-sharer to the petitioners. On the basis of such submission, the order passed by the original authority has been defended. 6. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submissions and after going through the pleading as available on record that the issue of dispute has been agitated by the petitioner by filing an application under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 which provides that any land is being transferred, the first right for its transfer is upon the co-sharer and the adjacent raiyat and if ignoring the said interest the land has been transferred, the co-sharer will have a right to make an application under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 within three months of such registration with the undertaking that entire consideration amount would be paid. Herein the petitioners claims to be the co-sharer and adjacent raiyat of the landed property in question but according to them recalling their interest the land has been transferred in favour of the respondent nos.5 and 6 which led the petitioner to file application under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961. The original authority i.e. the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ramgarh after entertaining the aforesaid application has issued notice to respondent nos.5 and 6 who have put their appearance and filed their reply denying the claim of the petitioner, specific stand has been taken in the reply about the relinquishment of right by the petitioners over the landed property in question, apart from claiming to be co-sharer and adjacent raiyat for four plots. The original authority has passed an order in favour of the petitioner which has been affirmed by the appellate authority, however, under the rivisional jurisdiction both the orders have been reversed which is under challenged in this writ petition. The main thrust of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is the question of perversity. According to him, the original authority has relied upon the sale deed dated 22.07.2009 and without discarding the finding recorded by the original authority or the original authority, the revision has been allowed while there is specific finding recorded therein by giving status of adjacent raiyat and the co-sharer basing upon the genealogical table which had never been disputed. While on the other hand Mr. While on the other hand Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 and 6 has defended the right referring the statement of relinquishment of right by the petitioners over the landed property. 7. The writ Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while issuing writ of certiorari, is required to make interference, if the order is without jurisdiction or suffers from perversity or if it is contrary to the statutory provision. Perversity means, none appreciation of the factual aspects or the evidence and if there is non-appreciation, it would be said to be perverse finding and if any order has been passed on the basis of the said finding it will be said to be improper. This Court after appreciating the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as referred hereinabove, the issue as to whether the finding recorded by the original authority is said to be perverse? Both the parties have advanced their argument showing their status of adjacent raiyat and the co-sharer. The revisional authority has reversed the finding basing upon the registered sale deed dated 22.07.2009 and while defending the said order the question of relinquishment by Mr. Tewari, learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 and 6, it is nowhere apparent from the order passed by the original authority that the issue of relinquishment has been discussed while on the other hand the finding recorded by the original authority on the basis of genealogical table and the Survey Khatian has been discarded but without recording any finding in this regard. Therefore, according to the considered view of this Court, the entire fact which as has been agitated by the parties before the original authority available on record, ought to have been appreciated by the revisional authority before coming to a conclusive finding, but having not done so the revisional authority has committed gross illegality in passing the order impugned. 8. This Court in the aforesaid aspects of the matter, deem it fit and proper to quash the order impugned under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of perversity, accordingly the order dated 06.01.2016 is quashed. 9. In the result, the Revision Case No.06 of 2014 is restored to its original file. 8. This Court in the aforesaid aspects of the matter, deem it fit and proper to quash the order impugned under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of perversity, accordingly the order dated 06.01.2016 is quashed. 9. In the result, the Revision Case No.06 of 2014 is restored to its original file. The revisional authority is directed to pass order in the revision case within three months of receipt of copy of the order on the basis of material available on record and after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. 10. The writ petition accordingly, disposed of.