Hari Lal Agrawal, J.

1. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the Board of Revenue, bihar, allowing a revision application of respondent no.4 in a proceeding initiated under the provisions of section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961.

2. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are that on 14th October, 1969 a sale-deed was executed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 in favour of respondent No.4 (Ajablal Yadav) with respect to 4 kathas from west of survey plot no.2399, situate in village Bhawanpur, Police Station Madhubani. The sale deed was registered on 12th November, 1969 The petitioner filed an application under section 16 (3) of the Act before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, madhubani on 18th December, 1969, claiming to be the co-sharer as well as an adjoining raiyat of the plot in question. On the same day respondent no.4 had executed a sale-deed selling the property in question to Awadhlal yadav, respondent no.7. This sale deed was registered on 22nd December, 1969. Notice of this proceeding was issued by the Deputy Collector to respondent no.4 who filed his show cause on 15th June 1970, disputing the claim of the petitioner that he was a co sharer or an adjoining raiyat of the and in question. It was further said by him, that the land in question was already transferred in favour of Awadhlal Yadav and possession was also delivered to him. It may be mentioned that in spite of this disclosure the ided petitioner did not implead the second transferee, the said Awadhlal Yadav, in the proceeding and for the first time he has been impleaded in this court as respondent no.7. It may also be usefully mentioned that it has not been the stand of the petitioner that the transfer in favour of respondent no.7 by respondent no.4 was either Farzi or sham, but his only plea was that respondent no.4 had executed the sale-deed with the sole motive to defeat the claim of the petitioner and to circumvent the provision of law.

3. The Deputy Collector allowed the claim of pre-emption accepting both the grounds advanced by the petitioner. Respondent no.4 then preferred an appeal before the Collector, Madhubani, against the order of the deputy Collector, which was dismissed by order dated 10th January; 1977. The Addl. Collector took the view that inasmuch as the sale-deed in favour of respondent no.7 was finally registered on 22nd December, 1969, i. e. subsequent to the filing of the application for pre-emption, the land in question could not be deemed to have been transferred from the possession of respondent no.4 to the possession of respondent no.7 on 10th December, 1969, the date of the filing of the application for pre-emption, since it was the date of the final registration and not the date of execution of the document that mattered in a pre-emption case. In support of his view the learned Additional Collector placed reliance upon the case of Ramnath Giri V/s. Ramsunder Giri and others (1970 PLJR 8 - Rev.) and, therefore, the sale-deed aforesaid was held to be invalid in law.

4. Respondent No.4 then filed a revision before the Board of revenue and the Board, on reference to the provisions of Sec.47 of the registration Act, came to hold that the sale deed in favour of respondent no.7 became effective from 18th December, 19 9. It further held that on the pre-emption application already stayed respondent no.4 had right to deal with the property. The Board, therefore, allowed the application and set aside the the orders of both the courts below. The petitioner has accordingly come to this Court.

5. Mr. Mojibul Haque, appearing in support of this application, raised the following points : -

(i) the transaction of sale by respndent no.4 in favaur of respondent no.7 was inoperative as it was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens ; and (ii) in any event, the case should be remitted back to the first court to enquire i