The main legal point established in the judgment is the impact of registration of sale deed on the right of pre-emption under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, emphasizing the requirements and historical background of pre-emption.

J.N.Bhatt, J.

1. An interesting question has surfaced in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the order - resolution dated 8.4.1988 recorded by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, who is respondent No. 2, in Case No. 170 of 1987, dismissing the revision application of the petitioner against the order dated 20.5.1987, recorded by the Collector, Bhagalpur, who is respondent No. 3, in Ceiling Appeal No. 177 of 1982-83, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 7.2.1983 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector ("LRDC"), in Land Ceiling Case No. 17 of 1982-83, by which the application for pre-emption came to be dismissed in respect of the questioned, property.

2. The petitioner is the pre-emptor who claimed pre-emption on the ground that the vendee got a registered sale deed with regard to the land adjoining to the transferred land on 23.12.1982, after filing of the pre-emption application. Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in respect of the questioned property, objected the claim of pre-emption of the petitioner on the ground that he was not adjoining owner or boundary - adjacent raiyat.

3. The disputed land, was sold by respondent No. 8 Bibi Sakina to respondent Nos. 5 to 7. The pre-emption application was filed by the petitioner Shobhit Mahto on 10.12.1982 in respect of the property sold by Bibi Sakina to respondent Nos. 5 to 7 being Land ceiling Case No. 17 of 1982-83 which was contested by the respondent Nos. 6 to 7. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bhagalpur, who is respondent No. 4, dismissed the pre-emption application of the petitioner under Sec.16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Act of 1961), on the premises that the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 - vendees got a registered sale deed with regard to the disputed land adjoining to the transferred land on 23.12.1982.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of rejection of pre-emption application by LRDC, Bhagalpur, preferred an appeal being Appeal Case No. 177 of 1982-83 unsuccessfully. This order of the LRDC came to be confirmed by the appellate authority recorded on 20.5.1987. The petitioner also lost in revision, decided by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue being Case No. 170 of 1987 on 8.4.1988. Thus, the claim for pre-emption of the disputed transferred, land in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 raised by the petitioner was rejected, concurrently, by all the three revenue authorities under the Act of 1961. Hence, this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned Counsels for the parties have offered their submissions. Factual scenario emerging from the record has been scanned and examined. Written arguments are also considered. Proposition of law and case law relied on have also been taken into consideration.

6. The petitioner sought to exercise the alleged claim of pre-emption in terms of the provisions of Clause (i) of Sub-section (3) of Sec.16 of the Act of 1961. The right of pre-emption has deep rooted, historical background. In order to claim pre-emption, there must be a complete transaction of sale. In other words, in a right of pre-emption, three parties are important (i) is transferor, who is respondent No. 8 in this petition namely, Bibi Sakina, (ii) the transferee or vendee, who are respondent Nos. 5 to 7 here and (iii) pre-emptor, claiming pre-emption in respect of the transferred land, who is petitioner here.

7. There are also certain other pre-requisites for claiming the right of pre-emption under Sec.16(3) of the Act of 1961.

8. It would, therefore, be expedient at this juncture to refer and re-produce the said provisions with profit:

16. Restriction on future acquisition by transfer etc. - (1) No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, either by himself or through any other person, acquire or possess by transfer, exchange, lease, mortgag