S.B.SINHA, J.

1. These two writ applications involving common question of fact and law are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. These applications are directed against an order dt.8-8-1985 passed by Respondent No. 4, order dt. 9-8-1991 passed by Respondent No. 3 and the resolution dt. 27-7-1992 passed by Respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 4 respectively whereby and whereunder an application for pre-emption filed by Respondent No. 5, Sita Ram Yadav was allowed.

3. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.

4. Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 purchased the land in question from Respondents Nos. 6 to 8 by reason of a registered deed of sale dt. 16-10-1973. Registration of the said document was completed in terms of S. 61 of the Registration Act on 22-11-1973. On 9-1-1974 Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 executed a deed of sale in favour of petitioners by virtue of two registered deed of sale for a consideration of Rs.5,000.00. The said deeds of sale were presented for registration on 15-1-1974. On 15-1-1974 an application for pre-emption was filed by Respondent No. 5 in terms of S. 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (herfinafter to be referred as the said Act"for the sake of bravity), in respect of first deed of sale dt. 16-10-1973. On 11-2-1974 the registration of the aforementioned two documents were completed. In the aforementioned proceeding under S. 16(3) of the said Act, Respondents Nos. 6 to 8 filed their show cause on 25-2-1974 wherein it was stated that they had sold the lands in favour of the petitioners. The said application for preemption was allowed by an order dt. 19-11-1974 by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. An appeal was preferred as against the said order being Appeal No. 63 of 1974-75. One of the points taken before the Appellate Authority was that the subsequent purchaser, namely the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 8095 of 1992 had not been impleaded as a party therein.

5. The Appellate Authority thereafter set aside the aforementioned order dt. 19-11-1974 and remanded the matter back to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector with a direction that the subsequent transferee should also be impleaded as party. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector by an order dt. 8-8-1985 allowed the said pre-emption application holding, inter alia, therein that the deeds of sale executed by Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 in favour of the petitioners was a sham and farzi transaction and has been made to defeat the provisions of the Act.

6. Admittedly the petitioners did not prefer any appeal or revision as against the said order. However, Respondents Nos. 8 to 10 filed an appeal which was dismissed on 7-10-1985. Thereafter, the first purchaser filed a revision application impleading the writ petitioners as a party and the Member, Board of Revenue remanded the matter back to the Collector. The Collector again decided the application on merits and allowed the preemption application against which two revision applications were filed, one by the subsequent purchasers and another by the first purchasers. Both revision applications have also been dismissed. These two writ applications are directed against the aforementioned orders, C.W.J.C. No. 8095 of 1992 by the .subsequent purchasers and C.W.J.C. 8736 of 1992 by the first purchasers.

7. Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has raised a short question in support of these applications. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the fact that Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 executed the said deeds in favour of the petitioners on 9-1-1974 although the said deeds were presented for registration on 15-1-1974, by feason of the provisions contained in S. 47 of the Registration Act, the title would pass on to the petitioners with effect from 9-1-1974 and thus the application for preemption under S. 16(3) of the said Act filed by Respahdent No. 5