A sale deed operates from the date of execution and not from the date of registration. If a sale deed is executed before filing of the application for pre-emption, even if registered later, the transfer is not pendente lite and the transferee becomes the owner prior to the filing of such application.

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

The petitioners, vendees have challenged the order passed by the authorities under the Land Ceiling Act whereby and whereunder the application for pre-emption under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Lands Act, 1961 preferred by the constesting respondent nos. 5 and 6 have been allowed and upheld by the higher authorities.

2. In this case, the dispute relates to 5 kathas of lands of R.S. Plot No. 199 appertaining to R.S. Khata No. 429 situated in village Sadukha, P.S. Khanpur in the district of Samastipur. The petitioners on the basis of one Bharna deed dated 26th June, 1988 got executed a sale deed on 26th January, 1990 with respect to 4 kathas of land of R.S. Plot No. 2906. Subsequently, the petitioners purchased the land in dispute from Ram Sudhir Thakur by a sale deed dated 12th February, 1989, which was registered on 27th January, 1990.

3. The respondent nos. 5 and 6 filed a joint petition for pre-emption under Section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act on 16th April, 1990 for re-conveyance of land purchased by sale deed dated 13th February, 1989, registered on 27th January, 1990, they were registered as Pre-emption Case Nos. 4 of 1990-91 and 3 of 1991-92. After notice and hearing the parties, the D.C.L.R., Samastipur allowed the application vide impugned order dated 2nd December, 1991. Thereafter, when the petitioners preferred Appeal No. 153 of 1991-92 and thereafter, Revision Case No. 44 of 1996, they were also rejected by impugned orders dated 14th August, 1995 and 24th August, 1996 respectively.

4. Before the authorities, the petitioners took plea that they also became the adjoining raiyat to the land in dispute in pursuance of subsequent sale deed dated 26th January, 1990, which was executed prior to filing of application for pre-emption, filed on 16th April, 1990. The aforesaid stand of the petitioners were rejected by the authorities on the ground that the subsequent sale deed dated 26th January, 1990 was registered on 25th May, 1990 that is after the filing of application for pre-emption. The authorities held that the sale deed dated 26th January, 1990 was executed in favour of the petitioners to defeat the application for pre-emption.

5. Before this Court, while the petitioners took the similar plea relied on decisions of this Court reported in 1970 BLJR 101; AI.R. 1978 Patna 148; 1985 PLJR 215; 1986 B.B.C.J. 581; 1994 B.L.J. 629 and un-reported decision of this Court in the case of Ram Chandra Yadav (Deceased) represented by heirs Ram Bilas Prasad & others vs. Srt A. Wati, Additional Member, Board of Revenue & others in C.W.J.C. No. 2046 of 1985 disposed of on 2200 July. 1997 [reported in 1997 (2) PLJR 413], which was upheld by Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 1043 of 1997 disposed of on 21st July, 1998.

6. On the other hand according to the contesting respondents nos. 5 and 6, the authorities rightly passed the order, the subsequent sale deed having executed to defeat the pre-emption and for this he relied on decision of this Court reported in 1983 P.L.J.R. 639.

7. Further according to the respondent nos. 5 and 6 the petitioners introduced false story that they were Bharna-dar of adjoining plot in question for which registered sale deed was executed on 6th June, 1990. Such false story was introduced after creation of forged and fabricated documents for trying to defeat legal claim of pre-emption of respondent nos. 5 and 6. The sale deed dated 26th January, 1990 has been created by the petitioners after filing of the application for pre-emption by the respondent nos. 5 and 6, which was produced for the first time for registration on 25th May, 1990, which is the date of registration.

8. The provision of Section 16(3) of Ceiling Act fell for consideration in different cases before a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Chandra Srivastava and others vs. Parsidh Narain Singh and others (A.I.R. 1971 Patna 302) held that the right of