Hari Lal Agrawal, J.

In this batch or three writ applications which have been referred to Division Bench by a learned single Judge and have been heard together, the question of law arising for consideration is the effect of a transfer by the purchaser of the land in question on the date of the filing of the application under section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. The petitioners in all the three cases are the purchasers and arc related to each other so much so that petitioner no. 2 of the first case is the petitioner of the second case and brother of petitioner no. 2 of the third case. These petitioners purchases certain lands situate in village Harnathpur in the district of East Champaran, from respondent no. 5 and 6 under three separate sale deeds for Rs.9,000/- each which Was registered on 29.9.1977, and according to their case the lands conveyed to the petitioners under the three sale deeds formed one compact block.

2. On 21.11.1977 respondent no. 4 filed applications for pre-emption in the court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sikrahna at Motihari for transfer of the lands in question to him claiming himself to be an adjacent raiyat thereof, and on the same day, i.e. 21.11.77, the petitioners in their turn, had also executed separate sale deeds in favour of different persons for the lands/part (sic), which were, however, registered on 17.12.1977.

On the notice of show cause being issued by the Deputy Collector. the petitioners challenged the right of the pre-emptor, inter alia, on the ground that they were not adjoining raiyata of all the lands and that the petitioners themselves were adjoining raiyats to one of the plots being plot no.1407, that being an ancestral plot of all the petitioners purchased by their ancestor Sukhram Sah, as recorded in the name of Gauri Shanker Sah. The Deputy Collector by his order dated 10.7.78 (Annexure 2) rejected the pre-emption application on the findings that the pre-emptor was not the adjoining raiyat of all the lands transferred to the petitioners and that the purchasers, namely, the petitioners, themselves were also in the western boundary of plot no.1407.

It is necessary, however, to mention that one of the points taken by the petitioners in their defence was that the pre-emption applications were defective for not impleading the subsequent transferees from them. The transferees had also made applications before the Deputy Collector (vide Annexure 12) for being made parties to the proceeding on the ground that they were bonafide purchasers and in possession of the lands in question. They had also challenged the report of the Auchal Adhikari (Annexure B) against them. The pre-emptor, however, filed a rejoinder objecting to the prayer of the subsequent transferees for being added as parties vide his rejoinder dated 7.12.1977 (Annexure 13). His stand was that the transferees were farzidars of the petitioners.

3. It was conceded at the Bar that the Deputy Collector did not pass any separate order on the petition of the subsequent transferees and, although outing the course of hearing Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh, appearing for the petitioners, on the instructions of the junior, stated before us that in his order (Annexure 2) also the Deputy Collector did not pass any order in this regard, I, however, find from the scrutiny of the order of the Deputy Collector that he has made all observation that the transfer of the lands by the petitioners on 21.11.77 did not appear to be farzi.

4. The pre-emptor also failed before the Collector of Motihari in his appeal, who by his order dated 30.5.79/13.6.79 (Annexure 3), relying upon a Bench decision of this Court in Chandradip Singh and another v. The Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar dismissed the appeals mainly on the ground that the petitioners having transferred the land to a third party on the date the application for pre-emption was made, no order could be pa