Untwalia, J.

1. In this case the important question of law, which falls for decision, is whether in a proceeding under Sec.16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, hereinafter called the Act, it is open to the transferor to sav that in spite of the execution and registration of the sale deed there was no transfer of land because the intention to transfer was on payment of the consideration money and since consideration money was not paid, land did not stand transferred.

2. Respondents 2 to 8 executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No. 1 on the 19th January, 1967 purporting to transfer 10 kathas 17 dhurs of land for Rs. 1,900/-. The registration was completed under Sec. 61 of the Registration Act Thereafter the petitioners filed an application under Sec.16 (3) of the Act claiming pre-emption on the ground that they were co-sharers and/or adjoining raiyats of the land transferred. It appears that notice of the filing of the application under Sec.16 (3) of the Act was given to the transferors and the transferee in accordance with Rule 19 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules, 1963, hereinafter called the Rules. They all appeared but the contest was by the transferors alone, namely, respondents 2 to 8. They took the plea that the intention to transfer the land was on payment of the consideration money and since the consideration money was not paid, the land did not stand transferred; they were still the owners of the land.

3. The Deputy Collector in charge of Land Reforms, Darbhanga, who decided the proceeding under Sec.16 (3) of the Act in the first instance by his order dated 5-2-68 (annexure 1), observed that by taking the plea of the kind taken by respondents 2 to 8 respondents 1 and 2 to 8 "have been in collusion to commit fraud on the legislation by saying that consideration money has not been paid". He was of the opinion that since the registration of the deed has been completed, the petitioners being adjoining raiyats were entitled to the order of the pre-emption. Respondents 2 to 8 went up in appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Sub-divisional Officer. Sadar, Darbhanga, by taking almost the same view as the one taken by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms. A copy of the appellate order dated 31-7-69 is annexure 2. Respondents 2 to 8 went up in revision. The learned Additional Member. Board of Revenue, has observed that in view of the well settled principle of law that title does not pass until the consideration money is paid; if the intention was to pass title on" payment of such money, it is necessary that enquiry be made to ascertain whether, in the light of the principles of law enunciated in several rulings of the High Court, consideration money had actually passed and the transfer had actually taken place or not. A copy of the order of the Additional Member. Board of Revenue, dated 8-12-69 is annexure 3 to the writ application. The preemptors feeling aggrieved by the order of the Board, of Revenue have obtained a rule from this Court against the respondents to show cause why the order (Annexure 3) be not called up and quashed by grant of a writ of certiorari. Cause has been shown on behalf of respondents 2 to 8 by filing a counter-affidavit as also at the time of the hearing of the writ application.

4. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that

(1) On the language of Clause (i) of Sub-section (3) of Sec.16 of the Act it is plain that the transfer of land is complete as soon as the registration of the document of transfer is complete and it is not open to the revenue courts to go behind the document and investigate the question of passing of consideration.

(ii) Transferors are not necessary parties to a pre-emption proceeding. Therefore, the only matter which can be investigated in such a proceeding is the one which arises on a plea which is taken or can be ta