S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Whether the tenuous right of statutory pre-emption under S.16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 would be defeated by a valid gift by the original transferee even before it matures by the registration of the document of transfer, is the significant question arising in this reference to the Division Bench.

2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The land in dispute was jointly sold by Srimati Laxmi Devi and Sri Ramakant Jha respectively by the sale deed dt. 25th May, 1974 in favour of Mansukh Das, respondent 4. It is common ground that this sale deed was completed by the entry in the registration book on the 17th July, 1974. However, meanwhile after five days of the execution of the sale deed the said respondent executed a deed of gift in favour of his two sons - Bhuvaneshwar Das alias Bhonu Das and Bathu Das - on the 30th May, 1974. This gift deed was duly registered and thus completed on the 27th July, 1974. It was after nearly six weeks therefrom that on the 9th Sept., 1974 the petitioners presented the application for pre-emption under S.16(3) of the Act. It was their claim that the gift by the original transferee was not a genuine transaction and was only intended to defeat their right of pre-emption. The question of the genuineness of the gift deed was squarely put in issue before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms. There as many as fourteen witnesses were examined apart from the documentary evidence adduced on the record, On a full appraisal thereof, it was held that the gift deed was a bona fide transaction and the property having already been conveyed to the transferee, the petitioners claim for pre-emption stood nullified. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred an appeal and after consideration of the finding of the trial Court, it was affirmed to the effect that (he transaction of gift was a genuine one and the appeal was rejected. The matter was then carried before the Board of Revenue in revision and the issue of validity of the gift deed was pointedly raised. The learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, in a considered order, concluded as under:

"There is nothing before this Court on the basis of which this deed of gift could be considered illegal, invalid or fraudulent and once the deed of gift has been executed and disputed land had been transferred to O.Ps. 2 and 3, no claim of pre-emption u/s.16(3) of the Act can lie against the original purchaser O.P. O.1."

3. Mr. Balabhadra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, in an able argument, first attempted the uphill task of challenging the concurrent findings of the three forums below about the genuineness of the gift deed. The contention raised was that the transaction was a sham and an eye-wash, and we were invited to construe the document and peruse the evidence to reverse the view taken by the three Courts.

4. The submission though forcefully pressed is plainly untenable in the writ jurisdiction. It is neither desirable nor perhaps possible to construe evidence and go behind the concurrent findings arrived on a question of fact after appraisal of evidence by as many as three authorities below. As has already been noticed, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, apart from documents brought on the record, examined a mass of evidence including the testimony of fourteen witnesses for arriving at the conclusion that he did. Those conclusions were assailed and re-appraised by the appellate Court and duly affirmed. The learned Additional Member of the Board of Revenue also considered the issue and arrived at the finding of affirmance quoted above. To my mind, it is hardly possible to go behind the said finding without a fourth re-appraisal of the evidence and, undoubtedly, that is a scope foreign to the writ jurisdiction. The first contention, therefore, must fail.

5. In fairness to the learned counsel for the petitioners I must notice his reliance on Snook V