S.B.SINHA, J.

1. This application is directed against the orders dated 7-7-1989 passed by the respondent No. 4, the order dated 2-1-1991 passed by the respondent No. 3 and the resolution dated 18-2-1992 passed by the respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

2. Shortly put the fact of the matter is as follows; - The petitioner by reason of a registered deed of sale dated 19-3-1987 purchased the lands in question from Rajendra Thakur. The said deed of sale was registered on 3-5-1988 subsequently the petitioner sold the said land to Ram Kishore Choudhary who allegedly purchased the same for construction of dwelling house by a deed of sale dated 2-41987 which was registered on 14-7-1987.

3. A pre-emption application was filed by the respondent No. 5 on 1-8-1988 purported to be in terms of Sec. 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming pre-emption in relation to the aforementioned deed of sale dated 19-3-1987. In the aforementioned proceeding the petitioner raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the proceeding in absence of Ram Kishore Choudhary who as noticed hereinbefore, was the subsequent purchaser.

4. It was further contended that as the pre-emptor had not deposited the requisite amount in terms of Sec. 16(3) of the Act claiming pre-emption in respect of the deed of sale dated 2-4-1987, the said application for pre-emption was liable to be rejected.

5. An application for addition of aforementioned Ram Kishore Choudhary was filed by the pre-emptor on 14-2-1989. The said Ram Kishore Choudhary, appeared and filed a show cause wherein he inter alia asserted that he had purchased the lands in question for the purpose of constructing his residential house. By reason of the impugned order, the aforementioned application for pre-emption has been allowed inter alia on the ground that the said purported deed of sale dated 2-4-1987 was a sham transaction.

6. Mr. Tara Kant Jha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. The learned counsel submitted that the application for pre-emption was not maintainable as the aforementioned Ram Kishore Chaudhary was impleaded (sic) as a party in the proceeding only on 14-2-1989 i.e. after the expiry of the period of limitation as provided under Sec. 16(3) of the said Act read with Rule 19 of the Bihar Land Reforms (fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules.

7. The learned counsel further submitted that in any event no legal evidence had been brought on records in order to enable the courts below to arrive at the finding that the subsequent deed of sale dated 14-7-1988 (sic) was a sham an farji transaction.

8. Mr. S. K. Mazumdar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5, on the other hand, submitted that the sale deed, dated 19-3-1987 was executed for a consideration of Rs. 10,000.00 whereas the purported deed of sale dated 2-4-1987 was executed for a sum of Rs.49,500.00 and further as evidently, Ram Kishore Choudhary is the brother-in-law of the petitioners brother and he had no land in the village from before, clearly demonstrates that a transaction was a sham and farzi one.

9. The learned counsel, further submitted that in view of the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by all the courts below, this court should not interfere with the impugned order.

10. It is now well know that the right of pre-emption is a weak right. Such a right can be defeated by a subsequent transaction. In Dhanik Lal V/s. Addl. Member reported in 1985 BBCJ 597 it has been held as follows;-

"The contention aforesaid takes one to the very root of the nature of the right of preemption generally and in particular under Sec. 16(3) of the Act. It is common ground before us that Sec. 16(3) is only a very limited statutory recognition of the otherwise well known