IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI LPA No. 49 of 2023 --- 1. Gopal Krishna Trivedi Aged about 70 years 2. Arvind Kumar Trivedi aged about 67 years 3. Satyendra Kumar Trivedi aged about 65 years 4. Arun Kumar Trivedi aged about 63 years 5. Akhileshwar Kumar Trivedi aged about 62 years All sons of Late Shyam Kishore Trivedi 6. Mangal Barat Devi aged about 75 years 7. Radhika Devi aged about 73 years 8. Taluka Devi aged about 69 years All daughters of Late Shyam Kishore Trivedi All resident of Village Karma under P.O Semoura P.S Majhiaon Distict Garhwa ...Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary having its office at Project Building Under P.O. and P.S Jagannathpur District Ranchi. 2. Member Board of Revenue having its Office at Dhurwa under P.O and P.S Jagannathpur District Ranchi. 3. Additional Collector Garhwa having its office under P.O and P.S Garhwa District Ranchi. 4. Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Garhwa under P.O and P.S Garhwa District Garhwa. 5. Manbasi Devi W/o Achhaibar Nath Pandey R/o Village Bhilma under P.O Semora P.S Majhiaon District Garhwa. 6. Murlidhar Singh S/o Late Nawajadik Singh R/o Village Karma under P.O Semora P.S Majhiaon District Garhwa. ....Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Appellants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. D.K.Malityar, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C to AAG-III --- 18/ Dated: 27.03.2025 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment dated 30.11.2022 of the learned Single Judge confirming the order dated 31.01.2020 of Member Board of Revenue. Page 2 of 3 2. The Member Board of Revenue by the said order has set aside an order passed by Additional Collector as well as Land Reforms Deputy Collector. 3. In the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge, the leaned Single Judge has extracted the reasoning given by the Member Board of Revenue as under: “6.This court would first like to examine the question whether the instant Revision Petitioner was a boundary Raiyat in respect of the land in question because of purchase of land vide Sale Deed no.1504 registered on January 3, 1992. The dates of execution and registration of Sale Deed Nos. 1504 and 1505 as stated by the instant Revision Petitioner have not really been disputed by the instant private respondents. Thus it is undisputed that Sale Deed no.1504 was registered before Sale Deed No.1505 which was registered on January 9, 1992. In deciding the question whether the land purchased vide Sale Deed No.1504 was adjacent to the land in question, the LRDC appears to have considered the boundaries mentioned in Sale Deed No.1504. The logic followed by the LRDC perhaps is that since the sale deed relating to the land in question had been executed on February 18, 1991, for the claim of the instant Revision Petitioner to be true, the Eastern boundary in Sale Deed No.1504 should have been mentioned as the land of the instant Revision Petitioner. However, the LRDC seems to have completely ignored the contents of the report dated November 24, 1993 of the Circle Officer. This report categorically states that in Plot No.7 itself, the lands purchased vide Sale Deed No.1504 lies to the West of the land in question. This court is of the considered view that in deciding boundaries in such matters, the report of the spot enquiry generally carries much greater importance than the contents of the sale deed. In the instant matter the relative importance of the spot enquiry is even greater because of the closeness of the respective dates of registration of Sale Deed Nos.1504 and 1505. 7.Based on the facts and circumstances narrated in the preceding part of this paragraph, this court is persuaded to conclude that the instant Revision Petitioner was an adjacent Raiyat in respect of the land in question, and, therefore, no preemption could possibly be allowed in respect of the land in question. Therefore, the instant Revision Petition is allowed and the two impugned orders of the Additional Collector and the LRDC are set aside.” By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge had upheld the decision of the Member Board of Revenue and had confirmed that the petitioners were adjacent Raiyat in respect of the land in question and therefore no pre-emption could possibly be allowed in respect of the land in question. 4. Though, the learned Single Judge has given certain additional reasons, we see no error in the judgment of the Member of Board of Revenue and the reasoning given by the Member Board of Revenue appears to be proper. 5. In the exercise of the limited jurisdiction conferred on this Court under the Letters Patent, every finding of fact recorded by the Revenue Authorities such as Member Board of Revenue, who have expertise in these matters, cannot be interfered with normally. Therefore, we see no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal, accordingly, it is dismissed. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) jk/vikas