ORDER : 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29th June 2022 passed in W.P. (C) No. 5699 of 2006, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the pre-emptor) has been allowed. The appellants are the purchasers of the property involved in the present case. The vendor of the property is Smt. Karuna Devi (Respondent No. 5). 2. Respondent No. 4 had allowed the application of the pre-emptor; the appellate authority dismissed the appeal and the revisional authority allowed the revision and set-aside the order of respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4. 3. The prayer of the writ petitioner- pre-emptor before the learned writ Court is as under: “For issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, Rules, orders, directions to quash the order dated 28.6.2006 (Annexure-7) passed by the respondent no. 2 in Revenue Revision petition bearing Giridih Case No. 76/2006 whereby the respondent no. 2 illegally allowed the Revision petition and set aside the orders dated 02.12.2005 and 25.12.2002 passed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in land ceiling appeal no. 8/2002-03 and Land Ceiling Case No. 38/2001-02 respectively allowing the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 for re-conveyance of land of plot no. 103 measuring area 0.33 acres appertaining to khata no. 1 of village Chandih, Thana no. 499, District Giridih and for issuance of any other writs, orders, Rules, directions as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts and the circumstances of the case stated hereinafter.” 4. The foundational background/facts of the case are as under: (a) The land measuring area 0.66 acres of plot No. 103, Khata No. 1 of the Village- Chandih, Thana No. 499, District Giridih was purchased by Smt. Karuna Devi W/o Sri Jamuna Halwai and Natho Halwai, S/o late Jhagru Halwai in equal share by registered deed of sale dated 23rd June 1984 from the erstwhile owner, namely, Ram Deo Rai. (b) Vide registered sale deed dated 11th July 1986, Natho Halwai sold his share of land to the mother of the pre-emptor and Smt. Sita Devi w/o Sri Lal Bihari Sharma in equal share. (b) Vide registered sale deed dated 11th July 1986, Natho Halwai sold his share of land to the mother of the pre-emptor and Smt. Sita Devi w/o Sri Lal Bihari Sharma in equal share. (c) Vide registered sale deed dated 12th May 2001, Smt. Karuna Devi sold 0.33 acres of the aforesaid land to the appellants for consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. (d) The writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘pre-emptor’) filed an application under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the aforesaid Act of 1961) on 15th June 2001 before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Giridih (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DCLR’) and claimed that he was the adjoining raiyat of the vended property involved in sale deed dated 12th May 2001. The application for pre-emption was registered as L.C. Case No. 38 of 2001-02 which was allowed in favor of the pre-emptor vide order dated 25th October 2002. (e) The appellants preferred an appeal against the order dated 25th December 2002 which was registered as L.C. Appeal No. 02 of 2002-03 before the Additional Collector, Giridih which was dismissed vide order dated 2nd December 2005. (f) Thereafter, the appellants filed a revision petition against the order dated 2nd December 2005 before the Member Board of Revenue which was registered as Revision Petition Case No. 76 of 2006. The revision petition was allowed by respondent No. 2. 5. The pre-emptor filed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the revisional authority. The learned writ Court allowed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 29th June 2022. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants-purchasers while assailing the impugned order passed by the learned writ Court has submitted that a finding of fact was recorded by the DCLR regarding the appellants being the adjoining raiyat and such finding has ultimately been confirmed by the revisional authority. The revisional authority has recorded that the pre-emption application was allowed by the DCLR since he found that the pre-emptor had a larger area of land adjoining the vended property. The learned counsel has submitted that the learned writ Court has gone into the legality and validity of the Hukumnama and has recorded a finding that the Hukumnama relied upon by the appellants-purchasers could not have been considered and has allowed the writ petition. The learned counsel has submitted that the learned writ Court has gone into the legality and validity of the Hukumnama and has recorded a finding that the Hukumnama relied upon by the appellants-purchasers could not have been considered and has allowed the writ petition. The learned counsel has submitted that the finding of fact that the appellants-purchasers were the adjoining raiyat was recorded by the revisional authority and the extent of adjacency is irrelevant when it comes to the matter regarding pre-emption. Arguments of the pre-emptor 7. The learned counsel for the pre-emptor has opposed the prayer of the purchasers and submitted that the learned writ Court has rightly interfered with the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue as the order of review was suffering from the error of law as well as facts. He has further submitted that the learned writ Court has rightly observed that Hukumnama was not a reliable document and, in such circumstances, the purchasers could not be said to be adjoining raiyat. Over and above the said document, the purchasers claimed further adjacency on the basis of the sale deed dated 05.09.2001 with regards to which it was submitted that any sale deed executed during the pendency of pre-emption application was of no legal consequence. According to the learned counsel, neither Hukumnama nor the sale deed dated 05.09.2001 could be used to declare the purchasers as adjacent raiyats to the vended property. Findings of this Court 8. The specific case of the pre-emptor before the learned writ Court challenging the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue was that the order was passed without applying judicial mind to the facts of the case and materials on record and by holding erroneously that the DCLR had accepted that some portion of the land of the appellants (purchasers) were adjoining to the disputed land and, therefore, the pre-emption application of the pre-emptor must fail. It was also the case of the pre-emptor that the Member, Board of Revenue failed to consider that the purchasers had purchased 1½ decimal of land after the pre-emptor filed his application for pre-emption. 9. It is an admitted position that the pre-emptor was the adjoining raiyat of the vended property by virtue of the previous purchase of the adjoining land. The writ petitioner/ pre-emptor filed an application for pre-emption being the adjoining raiyat of the adjoining property. 10. 9. It is an admitted position that the pre-emptor was the adjoining raiyat of the vended property by virtue of the previous purchase of the adjoining land. The writ petitioner/ pre-emptor filed an application for pre-emption being the adjoining raiyat of the adjoining property. 10. The appellants-purchasers also claimed to be adjoining raiyat by virtue of one bandobasti adjoining to the vended property and also by virtue of the purchase of adjoining land during the pendency of the application for pre-emption. Over and above the said document, the purchasers claimed further adjacency on the basis of the sale deed dated 05.09.2001 executed during the pendency of the pre-emption application. 11. Upon perusal of the order passed by the DCLR, it is apparent that the purchasers had stated that on the south portion of plot No. 103, land to the extent of 0.16 decimal was settled in their favor through bandobasti which touched some portion of plot No. 103 but the pre-emptor had a larger portion of land adjacent to the vended property. The DCLR has also recorded that some portion of adjoining land was also purchased by the appellants- purchasers during the pendency of the pre-emption application. However, the DCLR allowed the pre-emption application on the ground that the pre-emptor had a larger share of adjoining land as compared to the purchasers. 12. This Court finds that the DCLR had accepted that the appellants-purchasers were also raiyats of adjoining land through bandobasti and had also purchased another portion of land adjoining to the vended property during the pendency of the pre-emption application. 13. The Member, Board of Revenue considered the fact that the appellants -purchasers were already adjoining raiyat and held as under: “After hearing the arguments of the petitioners and respondent No. 1 as well as going through the available records I find that the order of the DCLR, Giridih suffers from a fatal flaw that vitiates the entire proceedings. The DCLR, Giridih in his order has recorded that the petitioners were raiyats of Plot No. 97 under Khata No. 25 of the same village but only a small portion of this plot adjoined the disputed land whereas a larger area of land of which respondent No. 1 is the raiyat is adjoining the disputed land. The DCLR, Giridih in his order has recorded that the petitioners were raiyats of Plot No. 97 under Khata No. 25 of the same village but only a small portion of this plot adjoined the disputed land whereas a larger area of land of which respondent No. 1 is the raiyat is adjoining the disputed land. The order of the DCLR thus accepts that the petitioners are also raiyats of land adjoining the disputed land though the adjoining land of the petitioners is less than that of the pre-emptor. The DCLR, Giridih has recorded that since a greater area of land of which respondent No. 1 is a raiyat is adjoining the disputed land, the right of pre-emption accrues to him. The law is very clear that it is not the decree of adjacency or the area of adjoining land that is to be considered when deciding an application filed under Section 16(3)(1) of the Act. There is no question of lesser or greater adjacency. If the vendee is also a raiyat of adjoining land then the pre-emption application must fail. The DCLR while accepting that the petitioners were also raiyats of adjoining land has allowed the pre-emption application only since he found the pre-emptor to have a larger area of land adjoining the disputed land. The order is thus bad in law. The Additional Collector, Giridih has failed to notice this defect and has more or less refused to interfere in the order of the DCLR. For the aforesaid reasons I allow this revision petition and set aside the impugned order of the Additional Collector dated 02.12.2005 as well as the order of the DCLR, Giridih dated 25.12.2002.” 14. This Court finds that the revisional authority recorded a clear finding of fact that the appellants-purchasers were the adjoining raiyats but the extent of the length of being adjoining with respect to the appellants was less than that of the pre-emptor of the case and held that the length of adjacency could not have been a ground to allow the application of pre-emption in favor of the pre-emptor. The revisional authority recorded that the DCLR had committed a fatal flaw that vitiated the entire proceedings and allowed the revision filed by the appellants-purchasers. 15. The revisional authority recorded that the DCLR had committed a fatal flaw that vitiated the entire proceedings and allowed the revision filed by the appellants-purchasers. 15. The findings of the learned writ Court are as under: “It appears to this Court that vide Sale Deed No. 2252 dated 12.05.2001, Respondent No. 7, namely Smt. Karuna Devi W/o Sri Jamuna Halwai has transferred a portion of land of Plot No. 103, area 0.33 acres in favour of Respondent No. 5 [Shri Krishna Kumar @ Kumar Krishna] and Respondent No. 6 [Shri Pankaj Kumar], both sons of Sri Braj Kishore Sharma and within three months, the pre-emptor/petitioner, Anant Deo Sharma, S/o Late Pritam Sharma and Chandrika Devi filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 along with required conditions of deposit of money, impleading all these persons as Opposite Parties in the proceeding before the DCLR, Giridih and after due notice, DCLR, Giridih has passed an order in favour of the petitioner though he has considered the other aspect of the matters with regard to raiyati right of both the parties which was never the subject matter before the DCLR, Giridih. However, this order was not assailed by the petitioner and against the order of the DCLR, Respondent No. 5 [Shri Krishna Kumar @ Kumar Krishna] and Respondent No. 6 [Shri Pankaj Kumar], [both sons of Sri Braj Kishore Sharma] preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Giridih. The Additional Collector, Giridih, after considering the merits of the case, did not intervene into the finding recorded by the DCLR and thus, rejected the appeal. Against the said appeal, the respondent nos.5 and 6 moved before the Member, Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 76 of 2005, who set aside the order of DCLR, Giridih and Additional Collector, Giridih on the ground that DCLR, Giridih has committed a flaw by considering the preemptor/petitioner, Anand Deo Sharma has a larger area adjoining the disputed land. Thus, the Member, Board of Revenue has set aside the order and thus, the instant Writ Petition was filed before this Court. Thus, the Member, Board of Revenue has set aside the order and thus, the instant Writ Petition was filed before this Court. This Court has examined the provisions of Section 2(k) and section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 and satisfied with the grounds of the petitioner, that the petitioner has adjoining land of Plot No. 103 which is agricultural land, as such, the petitioner comes under the definition of raiyat, under Section 2(k) and adjoining land under section 16(3) of the Act, 1961. Thus, petitioner has pre-emptive rights over the agricultural land because enactment of the Act is only for the purpose to consolidate the agricultural land. It also appears that Chandrika Devi, who is claiming pre-emptory right, rather the successor of Chandrika Devi having agricultural land adjoining to the disputed plot No. 103 is claiming pre-emptory right and that is granted in view of provisions of Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961, as such, this Court concurs with the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Prasad Singh (supra) wherein, it has categorically been mentioned that as a matter of fact Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 confers right of pre-emption not only to the co-sharer, but also to the raiyat holding the land adjoining to the land transferred. A complete stranger who was not originally a raiyat holding land adjoining to the land transferred cannot be allowed to defeat the right of pre-emption of a co-sharer by first purchasing an adjoining plot of the land and thereafter claiming to be a riayat holding land adjoining to the land transferred. The object of Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 is to recognize the right of pre-emption of the co-sharer of the transferor or any raiyat holding land adjoining to the land transferred and this object would be frustrated if the strangers are allowed to first buy one plot of land and then resist the claim of the right of pre-emption of a co-sharer or a boundary raiyat on the basis of such first purchase of a plot of land. Further, the Hukumnama as referred by learned counsel for the private respondents without having any authenticity and validity cannot be accepted by the Writ Court, as such, the prayer of the private respondents to consider the Hukumnama is hereby rejected. Further, the Hukumnama as referred by learned counsel for the private respondents without having any authenticity and validity cannot be accepted by the Writ Court, as such, the prayer of the private respondents to consider the Hukumnama is hereby rejected. It has also been held by the Apex Court in para-20 of the judgment of Suresh Prasad Singh (supra) that where a right of pre-emption is recognized by the statute, it has to be treated as a mandatory and not discretionary, as such, this Court has no doubt in the mind that petitioner being the co-sharer has land adjoining to the plot No. 103 and thus, comes under the definition of Section 2(k) and under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961, has right of preemption which was rightly allowed by the DCLR with some defects in the judgment, which is hereby modified. So far, the contention raised by the counsel for the private respondent that the aforesaid land has been vested in the widow and the same has become the Stridhan and no co-sharer has any right over the same. Stridhan of a woman is her absolute property and the husband has no interest in the same and the entrustment to him is just like something which the wife keeps in a bank and can withdraw any amount whenever she likes without any hitch or hindrance and the husband cannot use the stridhan for his personal purposes unless he obtains the tacit consent of his wife. Considering the submissions, it appears to this Court that the private respondent never took such plea with regard the stridhan before the courts below i.e. before all the three courts below. The issued raised for the first time before this Court under article 226 and even after giving opportunity, the private respondents failed to produce any documents to substantiate their plea with regard to the property being stridhan. In the absence of such documents and pleadings, this Court under writ jurisdiction cannot consider such submissions and even cannot adjudicate the same. Further, the fact of the instant case is different from the case relied by the private respondent in Marabasappa (supra) and which is not applicable in the present case. Thus, the plea raised by the private respondent with regard to the land being stridhan property is hereby negated. Further, the fact of the instant case is different from the case relied by the private respondent in Marabasappa (supra) and which is not applicable in the present case. Thus, the plea raised by the private respondent with regard to the land being stridhan property is hereby negated. As discussed above, the order dated 28.08.2006 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, in District-Giridih, Case No. 76 of 2005 is hereby set aside and the orders dated 02.12.2005 and 25.10.2002 passed by the Respondent Nos. 3 [The Additional Collector, Giridih] and respondent no. 4 [The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Giridih] in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 8/2002-03 and Land Ceiling Case No. 38/2001-02 respectively are hereby affirmed with modification, as stated above. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition stands allowed.” 16. The provision of section 16 (1) and (3) of the aforesaid Act of 1961 is quoted herein-below for ready reference: Section 16 Restriction on future acquisition by transfer: (1) No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, either by himself or through any other person, acquire or possess by transfer, exchange, lease, mortgage, agreement or settlement any land which together with the land, if any, already held by him exceeds in the aggregate the ceiling area. (2) Explanation - For the purpose of this Section “Transfer” does not include inheritance, bequest or gift. (i).............................. (ii).............................. (iii).............................. Explanation: ........................ (3)(i) When any transfer of land is made 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 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. (ii).............................. (iii).............................. 17. (ii).............................. (iii).............................. 17. From bare perusal of section 16(3) of the aforesaid Act of 1961, it is apparent that the condition precedent for the application to be filed under section 16(3) of the Act is that the transfer ought to have been made to a person other than co-sharer or a raiyat of the adjoining land. The right of pre-emption being a statutory right and being mandatory in nature can be exercised only by persons whose case falls within the provisions of section 16(3) of the Act itself. 18. It appears from a bare perusal of section 16(3) of the Act of 1961 that the law does not recognize the right of pre-emption by a person who claims himself a superior adjoining raiyat to that of the purchaser who is also an adjoining raiyat. The adjoining raiyat having a larger boundary with the vended property cannot claim any better right under Section 16(3) of the Act vis-a-vis the purchaser who is also an adjoining raiyat but has a smaller boundary. 19. The learned writ Court while considering the matter has referred to the Hukumnama and has observed that the Hukumnama as referred to by the purchasers was without any authenticity and its validity cannot be accepted by the writ Court and as such the prayer of the appellants-purchasers to consider the Hukumnama was rejected and after considering this aspect of the matter along with other points argued by the parties, the learned writ Court allowed the writ petition. Thus, one of the basis of the claim of adjacency raised by the appellants i.e. Hukumnama/bandobasti was disbelieved and rejected by the learned writ Court. 20. This Court is of the considered view that there is a clear finding of fact recorded by the revisional authority that the appellants were also adjoining raiyat of the vended property, there was no occasion for the learned writ Court to enter into the legality and validity of right flowing from Hukumnama/bandobasti particularly when the same was never in dispute before the respondent authorities. Moreover, in a proceeding under section 16(3) of the aforesaid Act of 1961, the authorities do not enter into questions of title in connection with the properties adjacent to the vended property. 21. It has been found by the revisional authority that both the purchasers of the land as well as the pre-emptor were the adjoining raiyat of the vended property. 21. It has been found by the revisional authority that both the purchasers of the land as well as the pre-emptor were the adjoining raiyat of the vended property. In such circumstances, there was no occasion for the learned writ Court to go into the legality and validity of the Hukumnama or any other documents on the basis of which the appellants-purchasers were claiming title over the property adjoining to the vended property involved in the present case. There was no scope for the writ Court to record a finding in connection with the Hukumnama which was the main reason for allowing the writ application and rejecting the status of the purchasers as the adjoining raiyat of the vended property. 22. The order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue (the revisional authority) setting aside the order passed by the DCLR as well as the appellate order is a well-reasoned order and is in consonance with the provisions of section 16(3) of the Act of 1961. 23. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned writ Court is set-aside, this appeal is allowed and, consequently, the revisional order is restored.