the course of hearing called for a report from the Anchal Adhikari, Baikunthpur and when the Anchal Adhikari did not submit the report, on the prayer of the petitioner, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Gopalganj himself inspected the plot in question and submitted the report. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms dismissed the preemption case holding that the land although mentioned in the record of rights as Dih but the land is meant for construction of house and there is no application of Section 16(3) of the Act. The preemptor filed Land Ceiling Appeal No.10 of 1993/18 of 1992-93 and the Additional Collector allowed the appeal holding that the Deputy Collector Land Reforms himself should not have inspected the disputed plot after hearing both the parties and based his finding on the report of the Anchal Adhikari that the land is agricultural land, set aside the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms by allowing the appeal. The petitioner preferred Land Ceiling Revision Case No.325 of 1993 and the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna held that beside the fact that the preemptor being co-sharer of the vended land, preemptor is also an adjoining raiyat of the vended land and held that the Anchal Adhikari has very categorically reported that the nature of the land is Dih agricultural. The learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna further held that the land is the land of a raiyat or a cultivator and is connected with agriculture. Even if the land is situated at a short distance from Mohammadpur cross section of two pucca road which is purely an agricultural piece of land of a cultivator and the same is not homestead and connected with agriculture. Even the homestead of a cultivator connected with agriculture comes within the definition of land and dismissed the revision petition. Thus, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
