D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) This civil review has been preferred for reviewing the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 408 of 2009 dated 22nd May, 2010, whereby the L.P.A. preferred by this applicant was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court.
(2.) Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that initially there was two houses which were purchased by the husband and the wife for which two applications under 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', for the sake of brevity) had been preferred by respondent no. 6, because there were two properties, one was purchased by the husband and another by wife. Both these applications were preferred before the Land Revenue Deputy Commissioner-SDM, Bermo at Tenughat. Both these applications were rejected by this authority vide order dated 1st February, 1986, against which, appeal was preferred by respondent no. 6 under section 30 of the Act, 1961 before the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, who also dismissed the appeal preferred by respondent no. 6 vide order dated 29th August, 1997. It is further submitted by the counsel for this applicant that being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, respondent no. 6 preferred a revision application before the Member, Board of Revenue under section 32 of the Act, 1961. The Board of Revenue remanded the matter vide order dated 28th July, 1994 to the Additional Collector, who is also concurrently empowered like Deputy Commissioner under section 30 of the Act, 1961. It is further submitted by the counsel for the applicant that Additional Collector, Bokaro decided the appeal, after remand of the matter, in favour of this applicant vide order dated 23rd December, 1997. Against which, respondent no. 6 preferred a revision application under section 32 of the Act, 1961 before the Member, Board of Revenue. This Board of Revenue allowed the revision application. Thus right of preemption claimed by respondent no. 6 under section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 was allowed vide order dated 10th July 2002.
(3.) It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the order passed by the Board of Revenue, both the husband and wife, preferred two separate writ petitions being WPC No. 4673 of 2002 (by wife-this applicant) and WPC No. 4672 of 2002 (by husband). WPC No. 4672 of 2002 (by husband) was dismissed for default for which CMP No. 148 of 2007 was preferred for restoration, which was allowed vide order dated 11th August, 2008 and the WPC No. 4672 of 2002 was restored to its original file with the same number preferred by husband. We are not concerned with this writ petition at all, in this case. This reference is made because the W.P.(C) No. 4672 of 2002 is similar like of the present one, which is preferred by the wife.;