S.N.P.Singh, J.

1. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution arises out of a proceeding under Sec.16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be called "the Act").

2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this application may be stated as follows :-

- The petitioner purchased a portion of plot No. 1075 of khata No. 225 measuring 2 kathas and 1/2 dhurs of land in village Raghunathpur. police station Brahmpur, in the district of Shahabad by a sale deed which was executed on the 30th of April. 1965, and was registered on the 12th of May. 1965. It appears that three sale deeds including the sale deed in favour of the petitioner were executed on the same date in different names. Narbadeshwar Singh (respondent No. 1) filed an application under Sec.16 (3) of the Act claiming pre-emption on the ground that he was the adjacent raiyat. The application which was filed by him is dated the 26th of July. 1965. There is an endorsement on the top of the application which reads "Ceiling clerk" and it is signed by the Sub-Divisional Officer bearing the date 26th July. 1965. It appears from the order sheet of the proceeding that on the 13th of September, 1965, the Sub-Divisional Officer issued notices to various persons including the petitioner to show cause as to why the prayer of the applicant should not be allowed. The application was ultimately taken up for hearing on the 18th of August. 1966. by the Sub-Divisional Officer. After hearing both the parties, the Sub-Divisional Officer reserved the order. Curiously enough, the Sub-divisional Officer for the reasons best known to him did not pass the final order for nearly one and a half years. On the 30th of March, 1968. he transferred the case to the file of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector for disposal. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector by his order dated the 2nd of November. 1968 (Annexure 3) allowed the application of respondent No. 1 end directed the petitioner to convey the land to him as per terms and conditions of the sale deed in question by the 30th of November. 1968. Being aggrieved by the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, the petitioner filed an appeal which was heard by the Sub-divisional Officer, Buxar. The learned Sub-divisional Officer by his order dated the 14th of November, 1969 (Annexure 4). dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then moved the Board of Revenue in revision under Sec.32 of the Act. The Additional Member. Board of Revenue, who heard the application in revision, by his order dated the 31st of August. 1970. dismissed the application (Annexure 5). The petitioner thereafter filed the present writ application in this Court challenging the validity of the orders as contained in Annexures 3. 4 and 5 of the writ application.

3 Mr. Ras Bihari Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, raised two contentions. In the first place, he submitted that the application under Sec.16 (3) of the, Act was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Learned counsel, however, very fairly gave up the point on looking at the order sheet which shows that the application was actually filed by respondent No. 1 on the 26th of July. 1965 and not on the 13th of September, 1965, when cognizance was taken and notices were issued.

4. The second contention which was raised by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the entire proceeding was vitiated because the Sub-divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to transfer the case to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. The question whether the Sub-divisional Officer has jurisdiction to transfer a proceeding under Sec.16 (3) of the Act from his file to the file of the Land Reforms Collector was considered by this Bench in C. W. J. C. No. 1544 of 1970 and C. W. J. C. No. 1545 of 1970 (Pat). (Chandra Kant Jha V/s. Naren-dra Narain Mishra) decided on the 27-11-1972 and it was held in that case that the Collector of th