Hari Lal Agrawal, J.

Both these writ applications have been filed by the same petitioner and arise out of a common order dated 10th April, 1973 (Annexure 4) passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna (Respondent No.5) disposing of two proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1 under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act, 12 of 1962)-to be referred hereinafter only as the Act' --setting aside the previous orders of the authorities subordinate to him and remanding the two cases to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Motihari, for a fresh decision by treating the petitioner as a party to the proceedings. All the parties are common in both the cases, and so are the facts and, accordingly, they are being disposed of by this Judgment.

2. The short facts relevant for appreciation of the question before us are these: Respondent No. 1 Jodha Raut filed two applications under section 16 (3) of the Act, on 8. 3. 1968 before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Motihari, claiming a right of pre-emption in respect of the lands transferred by Bindeshwari Prasad (respondent No.3) and Balram Prasad (respondent NO.4-since dead) to Lallan Prasad (respondent No.2) under two sale deeds dated 27. 9. 1967: one in respect of 6 kathas 7 dhurs of survey plot No. 1164. under Khata No. 281 for Rs. 1270/-and another in respect of 7 Kathas 15 dhurs of survey plot No. 1135, under Khata No. 112; of village Pataura Tota Lalla for Rs. 1500/-on the ground that he was a raiyat adjoining both the plots in question and, therefore, entitled for the transfer of the same in accordance with the above provision of law. Both the sale deeds were registered on 18.12.1967, but even before that, Lallan Prasad transferred the plots to the petitioner for a total consideration of Rs. 8,000/-by a sale deed executed on 21. 11. 1967 and registered on 16. 1. 1968.

Johda Raut was aware of this fact and in his applications for pre-emption, he had mentioned about the transfer of the lands in question by Lallan Prasad to the petitioner, but still the petitioner was not made a party by him. Lallan Prasad in his show cause had also stated that he had already parted with the land in question, bad no longer any concern with the same and the petitioner was a necessary party to the applications. It may, however, be mentioned that Jodha Raut had alleged in his applications that the transfer in favour of the petitioner was mala fide.

3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector dismissed both the applications by order dated 29.7.1969 (Annexure 1) on the ground that in the absence of the subsequent transferee, namely, the petitioner, the applications were not maintainable, and on that account, the deposit made by Jodha Raut, as required by the proviso to section 16 (3) of the Act, also fell short. On appeal by Jodha Raut against the orders of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, the appellate authority taking a view that it was not necessary to add the subsequent transferee as a party, allowed the appeals by order dated 23.6.1970 and held that Jodha Raut was entitled to pre emption. The appellate order has been made Annexure 2. Lallan Prasad then filed two revisions before the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, as directed by the Board of Revenue. The Commissioner, in his turn, transferred the cases to the Collector of Champaran, who by his order dated 1.5.1972 (Annexure 3,) relying upon a Bench decision of this Court, restored the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. Then Jodha Raut, the pre-emptor, came to the Board of Revenue, and before the Member, Board of Revenue, on his own accord, added the petitioner as opposite party No.4 for the first time. In view of a Bench decision of this Court in Ram Ohandra Yadav V. Anutha Yadav and others 19741 B.L.J.R. 994 also referred to by the Collector, Motihari, the Member, Board of Revenue took the view that in absence of the subsequent purchaser, namely the petitioner, the applicati