JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. The appellants are aggrieved of the order dated 04.05.2017 by which their challenge to the order dated 27.06.2003 passed in Land Ceiling Revision No. 12 of 2003 has failed. 2. Contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the finding of fact recorded by the appellate authority that the land in question is not agricultural land must oust the pre-emptor to seek a direction under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. 3. Mr. S.N. Das, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the original pre-emptor has failed to establish that she was an adjoining raiyat, particularly because the boundaries of the land in question and her land would not establish such fact. 4. Mr. P. Gangopadhyay, the learned counsel appearing for the legal heir of the pre-emptor namely, Smt. Sita Devi submits that the concurrent finding of fact by the two authorities that the pre-emptor was an adjoining raiyat is not open to challenge and her claim has rightly been allowed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms. 5. During pendency of the writ petition the pre-emptor as well as the purchaser both died and in their place their legal heirs and successors were substituted. 6. The case pleaded by the appellants is that through sale-deed dated 09.08.2000 the pre-emptor-Smt. Kailash Devi purchased a piece of land admeasuring 0.01 acre comprised under plot no. 2516, khata no. 45 within mouza-Sultana, PS-Katkamsandi for a valuable consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. She claimed that she has purchased the land which is described as tand land for construction of her house. She has purchased the land in question from Gandori Turi. There is no dispute that Sita Devi is the daughter of Manki Turi and Manki Turi has gifted a piece of land to her. 7. Stand taken by the pre-emptor-Sita Devi is that she is the adjoining raiyat and Smt. Kailash Devi has purchased the land in question for raising a dispute only. 8. On an application filed by the pre-emptor, L.C. Case No. 9 of 2000 was registered in the court of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Hazaribagh. In the proceeding of the land ceiling case, the applicant has examined herself and other two witnesses. 8. On an application filed by the pre-emptor, L.C. Case No. 9 of 2000 was registered in the court of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Hazaribagh. In the proceeding of the land ceiling case, the applicant has examined herself and other two witnesses. She has also produced copies of joint bank-account, gift-deed and agreement dated 25.02.1996 executed by the vendor-Gandori Turi and other revenue records. 9. The purchaser-Smt. Kailash Devi did not examine herself in the proceeding of the Land Ceiling case and no evidence was led by her. She has not filed any document to dispute the claim of the pre-emptor. 10. On the basis of the materials laid before him, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Hazaribagh has allowed the application under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, by an order dated 06.03.2001. 11. The appeal preferred by Smt. Kailash Devi vide Appeal Case No. 5 of 2001-2002 was dismissed by the order dated 03.09.2002 and the revision filed by her has been dismissed primarily on the ground of delay. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellate authority has recorded a finding that the land in question is not an agricultural land, still he has declined to interfere with the order dated 06.03.2001 by which the pre-emptor application under section 16(3) has been allowed. It is further submitted that in view of the patent error in the appellate order dismissal of the revision petition on the ground of delay is not proper. 13. Having scrutinised the materials on record and considered the rival contentions, we are not inclined to interfere with the order dated 04.05.2017 passed in W.P. (C) No. 4142 of 2003. 14. In the first place, it needs to be indicated that both the parties are co-villagers. They are the residents of the village-Meyatu, PO-Sultana, PS-Katkamsandi within the District-Hazaribagh. The dispute is in respect of 0.01 acre land. It is not in dispute that the applicant namely, Sita Devi was daughter of Manki Turi and she is the sole legal heir of Manki Turi. Two courts have concurrently held that Sita Devi is the adjoining raiyat. They are the residents of the village-Meyatu, PO-Sultana, PS-Katkamsandi within the District-Hazaribagh. The dispute is in respect of 0.01 acre land. It is not in dispute that the applicant namely, Sita Devi was daughter of Manki Turi and she is the sole legal heir of Manki Turi. Two courts have concurrently held that Sita Devi is the adjoining raiyat. Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 provides that if any land is transferred after the commencement of the Act to any person other than a co-sharer or a raiyat of adjoining land, any co-sharer of the transferor or any raiyat holding land adjoining to the land transferred shall be entitled for the transfer of the land to him. May be the applicant-Sita Devi is not a co-sharer of the transferor namely, Gandori Turi, it has been found by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms as well as the appellate authority that she is the adjoining raiyat. The order dated 06.03.2001 specifically records that the purchaser-Smt. Kailash Devi has not led any evidence in support of her claim. Her opposition to the application under section 16(3) was primarily founded on the plea that the land in question is not agricultural land. It is true that the appellate authority has observed that the land in question is not agricultural land, but then the content and tenor of the order would reflect that the appellate authority has completely agreed with the findings recorded by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Hazaribagh. Observation of the appellate authority that the land in question is agricultural land is not supported by any reason. In our opinion, it appears to be a typing mistake. 15. In the above state of affairs, in our opinion the learned writ Court has rightly declined to interfere with the revisional order. 16. In the above facts and circumstances, finding no ground to interfere in this matter, L.P.A. No. 320 of 2017 is dismissed.