1. Both these writ petitions are at the instance of the purchasers arising 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 referred to as "the Act". C.W.J.C. No. 1879 of 1979 has been preferred by the second purchaser of the land in question whereas C.W.J.C. No. 1885 of 1979 has been preferred by the first purchasers. In both these writ petitions what is sought to be quashed is an order passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, on 19-5-1979 allowing pre-emption of the land in question.

2. The short facts are as follows. On 1-6-1974 one Rajamangal Sao sold for a sum of Rs.3000.00 plot Nos. 2277, 2289 and 2292 to one Radhey Shyam Singh, who is respondent No./ 12, along with his two brothers, respondents 13 and 4, in C.W.J.C. No. 1879 of 1979, who are petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 1885 of 1979. On the same date Rajmangal Sao sold four other plots bearing nos. 2285, 2299, 2302 and 2308 to the same persons for a sum of Rs.3000/-. On 12-8-1974 Radhey Shyam Singh and his two brothers Awadhesh Kumar Sharma and Nand Kishore Sharma (petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 1885 of 1979) sold away all the plots acquired by them on 1-6-1974 to Saryug Prasad Singh (petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 1879 of 1979) for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The registration of the first two sale deeds was completed, as envisaged under section 60 of the Indian Registration Act, on 9-11-1974. It may be stated here that the second sale deed dated 12-8-1974 was presented for registration on the very same date under the Indian Registration Act but it is said registration completed after the filing of the application for pre-emption. On 24-11-1974 an application for pre-emption under sec. 16(3) of the Act was filed against the first purchaser Radhey Shyam Singh and two others impleading the second purchaser as party to the proceeding. The amount of compensation deposited was on the basis of the valuation of 1-6-74, namely, Rs.6000/-, with an additional sum of Rs.600/-The second consideration amount and compensation thereof was not deposited. As a matter of fact, pre-emption was really claimed against the first purchasers.

3. The learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector allowed the application for pre-emption but the order was set aside on appeal by the Additional Collector. As against the decision of the Additional Collector the pre-emptor took a revision before the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, who restored the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector by reversing the judgment of the Additional Collector. The learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, held that the appeal by the second purchaser was not maintainable. He further held that the second sale deed dated 12-8-1974 having not attained finality in terms of sections 60 and 61 of the Indian Registration Act following the decision of Hiralal Agarwal V/s. Rampadarath Singh, AIR 1969 SC 244 observed that the transfer to the second purchaser was not complete when the application for pre-emption was made. Therefore, the title remained with the first purchasers and it was quite justified to allow pre-emption against Radhey Shyam Singh and others. It was further held that the pre-emptors are members of joint family and they are adjacent to all the plots transferred.

4. Mr. Sudhir Chandra Ghose, learned Senior Counsel appearing in these cases, contended that the first purchasers having already washed off their hands by their transfer dated 12-8-74 prior to the application for pre-emption and the pre-emptors having not deposited the consideration amount of the second transfer and compensation thereof, the petition for pre-emption was not maintainable. He further submitted that the pre-emption is a very weak right and a purchaser can always forestall an application for pre-emption, if that can be done in law. In the instant case it has so happened. His next submission is that in an application for pre-emption it i