Aftab Alam, J.

1. These two writ applications, based on similar facts and involving the same questions of law, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment."

2. The applications arise out of pre-emption proceedings in which the claim of pre-emption made on behalf of respondent No. 4 who is common in both the cases has been allowed. The two applications in this Court are at the instance of the second transferees who happen to be different in the two cases The original vendors who are common in both the applications have been "impeded as respondents 6 to 8 in CWJC No. 5998 of 1984 and as 7 to 9 in CWJC No. 6020 of 1984. The first purchasers in the two cases are different and have been impleaded as respondent No. 5 in CWJC No. 5998 of 1984 and as respondents 5 and 6 in CWJC No. 6020 of 1984. The pre-emptor again is common in both cases and has been impleaded as respondent No. 4 in the two applications.

3. The subject matter of dispute are some land, six decimals in area in each of the two cases which have been described in para 4 of both the writ petitions.

4. By registered sale deeds dated 12-6-6-1979 the original vendors sold the two parcels of land one in favour of respondent No. 5 of CWJC No. 5998 of 1984 and the other in favour of respondents 5 and other in favour of res-pondents 5 and 6 of CWJC No. 6020 of 1984, each for a consideration of Rs 5,000.00 . The registration of the two sale deeds was completed on 29-6-1979. On 8-8-1976. the pre-emptor, common in both the proceedings and who has been impleaded as respondent No. 4 in the two writ petitions filed an application for pre-emption under Sec. 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter to referred as the Act). This application was original filed impleading the vendors and the first purchasers as opposite parties and was accompanied by the necessary deposits of the consideration money (a sum of Rs. 5,000 for each case along with an additional sum @ 10%). The firts purchasers in both the proceedings appeared in pursuance to the notices issued before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms. Bihar Sharif on 16-10-1979. Then a prayer was made on their behalf for adjournment of the case for filing their show cause. On the next date i.e. 30-10-79 neither any show cause was filed nor any Pairvi was made on their behalf. On the next date i.e. 6-11-1979 a petition was again filed for time and in this manner adjournments were sought on 20-11-1979, 27-11-1979 and 4-12-1979. Thu;, the proceeding lingered on without the first purchasers filing any show cause ,or even stating that they had transferred the land to some one else before the filing of the pre-emption application by respondent No. 4. Finally on 11-1-1980 a written statement was filed on behalf of the first transferees of both the proceedings disclosing for the first time that the lands in question had been transferred to the second transferees. The second transferees in the two proceedings were two different persons who are the writ petitions in the two writ petitions.

5. One cannot fail to notice the curious nature of the situation where the two first transferees although different persons were acting almost in tandem, taking adjournments on the same dates and finally filing their show cause on the same date disclosing that they had executed sale deeds in favour of two different persons on same dates prior to the date of filing of the pre-emption application.

6. The first transferes in CWJC No. 5998 of 1984 executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioners of that case on 9-7-1979 while the first transferees of CWJC No. 6020 of 1984 executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioners of that case on 11-7-1979. However, both these deeds were presented for registration two months after the date of execution on 11-9-1979 and the registration was completed on 11-10-1979.

7. After the filing of the show cause by the first transferees