JUDGMENT : With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality. 2. This intra-court appeal is preferred against the order/judgment dated 23.02.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 7084 of 2011 with W.P. (C) No. 7102 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the writ petitions were allowed and orders dated 22.10.2011 passed in Land Ceiling Revision Case No. 33/2009 and Land Ceiling Revision Case No. 34/2009; orders dated 19.09.2009 passed in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 05/2007-08 and Land Ceiling Appeal No. 12 of 2007-08; and orders dated 12.01.2007 passed in Land Ceiling Case No. 2/2005-06 and Land Ceiling Case No. 1/2005-06 were quashed and set aside. 4. The brief facts of the case, which are required to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis, are as under: The writ petitioners, respondents nos. 2 to 4 herein, who are members of Hindu undivided family, purchased two landed property vide registered sale deed Nos. 589 of 2005 and 590 of 2005 both dated 31.03.2005. The respondent no. 5, namely, Sitaram Sao (appellant herein) filed pre-emption applications, being Land Ceiling Case No. 2/2005-06 and Land Ceiling Case No. 1/2005-06, on the ground that he is the adjoining raiyat on the western side of the vended plot as such the vended plot ought to be registered in his name, which were allowed vide order dated 12.01.2007 by the revenue authority-Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Latehar, against which the writ petitioners had filed appeal, being Land Ceiling Appeal No. 05/2007-08 and Land Ceiling Appeal No. 12 of 2007-08, which were dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2009 and thereafter, the writ petitioners filed revision applications, being Land Ceiling Revision Case No. 33 of 2009 and Land Ceiling Revision Case No. 34 of 2009, which were also dismissed. Aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioners filed two writ petitions challenging orders passed by the revenue authorities, being W.P.(C) No. 7084 of 2011 and W.P.(C) No. 7102 of 2011, which were heard together and allowed vide order dated 23.02.2018. 3. In the instant intra-court appeal, the appellant (respondent no. 5 in the writ petition) has confined his prayer with respect to order passed in W.P.(C) No. 7102 of 2011 that is matter relating to sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005. 3. In the instant intra-court appeal, the appellant (respondent no. 5 in the writ petition) has confined his prayer with respect to order passed in W.P.(C) No. 7102 of 2011 that is matter relating to sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005. The specific case of the writ petitioners before the writ Court was that by virtue of registered sale deed no. 494 dated 18.4.2001, the father of the writ petitioners, namely, Dwarika Vishwakarma purchased 20 decimals of land from the owner of the land namely, Khobhari Singh Kushwaha and Lakshman Singh Kushwaha, in Old Khata No. 38 (New Khata No. 104), Old Plot No. 79 (New Plot No. 318) with the boundary: North : Nij. South : Shiv Sao and Murat Sao East : Mahesh Singh West : Tulsi Sao In the year 2005, one of the boundary raiyats towards southern side of the property as contained in sale deed no. 494 dated 18.04.2001 sold out 31 decimals of land in Khata No.30 (New Khata No.109), Plot No.151 (New Plot No.315) to the writ petitioners by registered sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005 with the following boundary: North : Dwarika Vishwakarma South : Shiva Sao East : Basudeo Mishra & Raj Ballabh Singh West : Sitaram Master It was further case of the writ petitioners that the sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005 clearly shows Dwarika Vishwarkarma to its northern adjoining raiyat, which is on account of sale deed no. 494 dated 18.04.2001, therefore, there was no dispute that the father of the writ petitioners namely, Dwarika Vishwarkarma, who was the member of the joint Hindu family, was the adjoining raiyat of the property as contained in sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005, as such the writ petitioners also have the status of the adjoining raiyat of the property covered under sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005 and accordingly, the writ petitioners have rightly purchased the property and there was no violation of Section 16 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’). On the other hand, respondent no. 5, the appellant herein, submitted before the writ Court that claim of the writ petitioners being adjoining raiyat in connection with sale deed no. On the other hand, respondent no. 5, the appellant herein, submitted before the writ Court that claim of the writ petitioners being adjoining raiyat in connection with sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005 is based on the sale deed of the year 2001 executed in favour of the father of the petitioners, but the aforesaid sale deed was never produced before any of the quasi judicial authorities rather the same was placed for the first time before the writ Court, thus the said claim of the petitioners is not fit to be considered. The writ Court, after considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the documents available on record, allowed the writ petitions vide order dated 23.02.2018, which is the subject matter of present intra court appeal. 4. Ms. M.M. Pal, learned senior counsel for the appellant (respondent no. 5 in the writ petitions) has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is without appreciating the factual aspect as the learned Single Judge has considered the status of the writ petitioners of being adjoining raiyat in connection with sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005 is based on the sale deed of the year 2001 and executed in favour of father of the writ petitioners but the sale deed of the year 2001 was never produced before any of the quasi judicial authorities rather the same was produced before the writ court for the first time and as such the aforesaid sale deed ought not to have been considered by the learned Single Judge. It has further been argued that so far claim regarding adjoining raiyat in connection with other property being sale deed no. 590 dated 31.03.2005 is concerned, the claim of the petitioners being adjoining raiyat is by virtue of another sale deed no. 590 executed on the same day i.e. on 31.03.2005 and since both the sale deeds were executed on the same day, as such the writ petitioners cannot be given benefit of the provisions of the aforesaid Act. 590 dated 31.03.2005 is concerned, the claim of the petitioners being adjoining raiyat is by virtue of another sale deed no. 590 executed on the same day i.e. on 31.03.2005 and since both the sale deeds were executed on the same day, as such the writ petitioners cannot be given benefit of the provisions of the aforesaid Act. According to learned senior counsel the land in question was purchased only to defeat the right of the pre-emptor which is a statutory right and the same cannot be denied, as such submission has been made that taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the quasi judicial authorities have passed order in right prospective but all these orders have been quashed and set aside by learned Single Judge without appreciating the aforesaid factual aspects. 5. Per contra, Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, respondent nos. 2 to 4 herein, submitted that by virtue of registered sale deed no. 494 dated 18.04.2001, the father of the petitioners, namely, Dwarika Vishwakarma purchased land from the owner of the land, namely, Khobhari Sikngh Kushwaha and Lakshman Singh Kushwaha. Thereafter, in the year 2005, one of the boundary raiyats towards southern side of the property as contained in sale deed no. 494 dated 18.04.2001 sold out 31 decimals of land in Khata No. 30 (New Khata No. 109), Plot No. 151 (New Plot No. 315) to the petitioners by registered sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005 with the following boundary: North : Dwarika Vishwakarma South : Shiva Sao East : Basudeo Mishra & Raj Ballabh Singh West : Sitaram Master From bare perusal of sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005, it clearly appears that Dwarika Vishwakarma, the father of the writ petitioners, is to its North, as such the petitioners have the status of adjoining raiyats of the property covered under sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005. It has further been submitted that along with the property purchased sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005, the petitioners have purchased another piece of land vide sale deed no. 590 dated 31.03.2005, the boundary of which are as under: North: Pradeep Kumar Vishvakarma & Ors South: Niz. Shiva Sao East: Basudeo Mishra & Raj Ballabh Singh West: Sitaram Master It has been submitted that the name of Pradip Vishwakarma was mentioned in sale deed no. 590 dated 31.03.2005, the boundary of which are as under: North: Pradeep Kumar Vishvakarma & Ors South: Niz. Shiva Sao East: Basudeo Mishra & Raj Ballabh Singh West: Sitaram Master It has been submitted that the name of Pradip Vishwakarma was mentioned in sale deed no. 590 dated 31.03.2005 as on the same day, they had purchased northern portion of the property of the adjoining land towards the north by virtue of sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005. It has further been submitted that the entire purpose was to analogously purchase the property involved in sale deed no. 590 dated 31.03.2005 and sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005 by the petitioners being the adjoining raiyats. Learned counsel further submitted that from the north side of the property two sale deeds were executed on account of the fact that two properties stood in the name of two different persons and the same was not a device to defeat any right of respondent no. 5, appellant herein, or to defeat any provision of the Act, but the revisional authority while passing the order has committed gross illegality as without appreciating the fact that the petitioners had purchased plot no. 151 (in dispute) in two parts vide sale deed no. 589 and 590 dated 31.03.2005 and as such it cannot be disputed that the petitioners are not adjoining raiyats in both the sale deeds. It has further been submitted that the learned Single Judge has considered these aspects of the matter and come to right conclusion by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the revenue authorities. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record as also finding recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order. It is admitted fact as would appear from sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005 that towards north of the property, name of the father of the petitioners has been shown. From perusal of the pre-emption application filed by the respondent no. 5, appellant herein, being Land Ceiling Case No. 2/2005-06 and Land Ceiling Case No. 1/2005-06, it appears that there was no dispute regarding the fact that towards north property stood purchased by Dwarika Vishwakarma. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioners are the sons of said Dwarika Vishwakarma and constitute undivided Hindu family. 5, appellant herein, being Land Ceiling Case No. 2/2005-06 and Land Ceiling Case No. 1/2005-06, it appears that there was no dispute regarding the fact that towards north property stood purchased by Dwarika Vishwakarma. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioners are the sons of said Dwarika Vishwakarma and constitute undivided Hindu family. Further, the petitioners were the co-sharers of the property in the name of Dwarika Vishwakarma and were the adjoining raiyats since it is admitted that the property towards north stood in the name of father of the petitioners. Further, it is also not in dispute that the property to the north of the land was covered by sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005 stood in the name of the petitioners. It is also not in dispute that the land purchased by virtue of sale deed no. 590 dated 31.03.2005 by the writ petitioners and in consequence thereof the writ petitioners have become the adjoining raiyat of the property in dispute by virtue of purchase of property by another sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005. It is also not in dispute that the right of pre-emption is a very week right and the same is to be considered in view of provision of Section 16(3) of the Act. Section 16(3) of the Act is quoted hereunder as: “16. Restriction on future acquisition by transfer, etc. 16(3) (i) When any transfer of land is made after the commencement of the Act to any person other than a cosharer or a raiyat of adjoining land, any co-sharer of the transferor or any raiyat holding land adjoining the land transferred, shall be entitled, within three months of the date of registration of the document, of transfer, to make an application before the Collector in the prescribed manner for the transfer of the land to him on the terms and conditions contained in the said deed. Provided that no such application shall be entertained by the Collector unless the purchase money together with a sum equal to ten percent thereof is deposited in the prescribed manner within the said period. Provided that no such application shall be entertained by the Collector unless the purchase money together with a sum equal to ten percent thereof is deposited in the prescribed manner within the said period. (ii) On such deposit being made the co-sharer or the raiyat shall be entitled to be put in possession of the land irrespective of the fact that the application under clause (i) is pending for decision: Provided that where the application is rejected, the cosharer or the raiyat, as the case may be, shall be evicted from the land and possession there of shall be restored to the transferee and the transferee shall be entitled to be paid a sum equal to ten per cent of the purchase money out of the deposit made under clause (i) (iii) If the application is allowed, the Collector shall by an order direct the transferee to convey the land in favour of the applicant by executing and registering a document of transfer within a period to be specified in the order and, if he neglects or refuse to comply with the direction, the procedure prescribed in Order 21, Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), shall be, so far as may be, followed. From perusal of the stipulation made in the aforesaid statutory provision the condition precedent for exercising the right of pre-emption under Section 16(3) of the Act is that the parties must be co-sharers and the adjoining raiyat. From the facts narrated herein above, it is not in dispute that the purchase of the landed property was made vide sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005 by the writ petitioners and subsequently the part of the property of the land was purchased vide sale deed no. 590 dated 31.03.2005. The petitioners, who happen to be sons of the purchaser, namely, Dwarika Vishwakarma, and being in the Hindu undivided family have become adjoining raiyat of the property which is also not in dispute. The quasi judicial authorities have not appreciated these factual aspects of the matter rather travelled into wrong direction by making an observation that the purchasers (writ petitioners) cannot claim to be the adjoining raiyat for taking advantage of the provisions of Section 16(3) by virtue of concurrent sale of the same plot demarcated into two parts. 8. The quasi judicial authorities have not appreciated these factual aspects of the matter rather travelled into wrong direction by making an observation that the purchasers (writ petitioners) cannot claim to be the adjoining raiyat for taking advantage of the provisions of Section 16(3) by virtue of concurrent sale of the same plot demarcated into two parts. 8. The learned Single Judge has considered the aforesaid reason to be incorrect and rightly done so as by virtue of purchase of the property by sale deed vide sale deed no. 589 of 2005 dated 31.03.2005, the status of adjoining raiyats cannot be disputed subsequently that too without challenging the aforesaid registered sale deed, further, on the ground by coming to the conclusion by perusal of the sale deed no. 589 dated 31.03.2005, it has been found that towards north of the property, name of father of the writ petitioners was mentioned, the aforesaid fact has not been disputed as would appear form the pre-emption application field by the pre-emptor and once the property has been purchased by the father of the writ petitioners towards the north and the writ petitioner being the members of the Hindu undivided family, accordingly the petitioner have obtained the status of adjoining raiyats. 9. So far as allegation of the respondent no. 5, the appellant herein, that these two sale deeds have been executed as a device to defeat the provisions of law, it cannot be said to be sustainable and argument made to that effect has also been discarded by recording the reason that merely by virtue of purchase of land through two different sale deeds by two different persons and executed on the same date no malice can be attributed to the petitioners for that action. 10. The learned Single Judge also considered about applicability of the judgment rendered in Vijay Kumar Yadav vs. State [ 2007 (3) BBCJ 350 (Patna)], which has been found to be not applicable in the facts of this case as therein the Court had allowed the claim of the pre-emption on the ground that simultaneous purchase of both the properties had indicated the intention of the purchaser to buy the larger area of the land and it was held that if the application for pre-emption is allowed, it would become onerous for the purchaser and the right between the parties is required to be balanced. 11. 11. The learned Single Judge has come to the conclusive finding that the writ Court does not find any mala fide intention on the part of the petitioners and any intention to defeat the provisions of the Act, and as such the intention of the writ petitioner to buy large chunk of land covered by two sale deeds executed by two persons cannot be a ground to allow the pre-emption application. Further the judgment rendered in 1997 (2) PLJR 412, wherein it has been laid down that the right of pre-emption has to be seen on the date of filing of the application. In the case in hand the fact is that on the date of application, the petitioners were adjoining raiyats by virtue of sale deed no. 590 dated 31.03.2005 and sale deed no. 589 of 2005 dated 31.03.2005 although they were simultaneously purchase from two different persons. 12. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact in entirety and considering the fact that sale deeds, sale deed nos. 589 and 590 both dated 30.12.2005, which conferred status of adjoining raiyat upon the writ petitioner, since were not questioned by the pre-emptor, the status of the writ petitioners of adjoining raiyat cannot be disputed in the facts of the case. Accordingly, in our considered view, the learned Single Judge is correct in interfering with the impugned orders passed in Land Ceiling Revision Case No. 33 of 2009 and Land Ceiling Revision Case No. 34 of 2009; orders dated 19.09.2009 passed in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 05/2007-08 and Land Ceiling Appeal No. 12 of 2007-08; and orders dated 12.01.2007 passed in Land Ceiling Case No. 2/2005-06 and Land Ceiling Case No. 1/2005-06, hence, we find no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. 13. Accordingly, the present intra-court appeal fails and, is dismissed. 14. In view of the dismissal of the instant intra-court appeal, Interlocutory Applications, being I.A. No. 6375 of 2020 and I.A. No. 187 of 2020 stand disposed of.