S.K. CHOUDHURI, J

1. These three writ application have been heard together as they raise a common question for decision. The petitioner in the first two writ applications is one Parmeshwar Singh and the petitioner in the third writ application is one kamleshwari Singh. The purchasers in all the three writ applications are different persons and the vendors are the same. In the first two writ applications the subsequent purchaser is Mehi Lal Mahto (Respondent No.2). Whereas in the third writ application its subsequent purchaser is Ramkhelawan Mahto (Respondent No.6).

2. In all these three writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioners who are the preemptors prayed for quashing the orders of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Begusarai dated 16th May 1977 contained in Annexure–3 and the appellate order passed by Additional collector, Begusarai dated 24th November 1978 contained in Annexure and the revisional order passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, dated 30th July, 1979 as contained in Annexure–1.

3. It will suffice to give the relevant facts of C.W.J.C, No.2625 of 1979, as dates of different sale deeds, which occasioned the filing the three preemption applications by the petitioners and the date of the subsequent sale deed are the same and the order dismissing all the three preemption application is common as also the appellate order and the revisional order.

4. The sale deed in question was executed on 7th May, 1975 by the vendors in favour of the purchaser and was registered on 16.6.1975 in favour of the subsequent purchaser. Preemption application, it appears was filed on 15th September, 1975 in relation to the three sale deeds, which gave rise to three cases. They were heard together and disposed of by a common Judgment as contained in Annexure–3 aforesaid. After the filing of the aforesaid preemption applications, the first purchaser appeared and filed his show cause stating that he has already transferred the land to the second purchaser (subsequent purchaser). According to the petitioner, he came to know for the first time about the second transfer after the first purchaser filed his show cause and, accordingly, on 25th February, 1976, the pre-emptor, namely, the writ petitioner filed an application to add the subsequent purchaser as a party to the proceeding. The preemption application was heard and rejected by the order (Annexure–3). Three appeals were filed by preemptors before the Additional Collector, but they were all dismissed by a common order as contained in Annexure–2. There after, the Additional Member, Board of Revenue also dismissed the three revision applications preferred by the preemptors by the common order as contained in Annexure1.

5. Mr. Lakshman Sharan Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner in all the three writ applications strongly contended that when the writ petitioner had no knowledge of the second transfer, he was well within time from the date of the first sale deed to file an application under Sections 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act, 12 of 1962) hereinafter called 'the Act' the said Application could not be defeated by the sale-deed executed and registered with in the limitation period for filing pre-emption application. His further contention was that when there was specific assertion in the application for adding the subsequent purchaser as a party and that the second transaction was sham, farzi and created only to defeat the purpose of the Act, the subsequent purchaser should have been allowed to be added as a party and the courts below should have investigated into the allegations regarding sham and farzi nature of transaction. He therefore, contended that none of the authorities below having entered into that question, the impugned Annexure are liable to be set aside and it is a fit case for sending back the matter to t