The requirement of filing a copy of the registered deed along with the application under Rule 19(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules, 1963 is mandatory and not directory.

Narasimham, C.J.

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, dated the 27th February, 1967 (Annexure C), setting aside the orders of the Collector of Patna and of the Commissioner in Appeal, and dismissing the petitioners' application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. One Premawati Devi alias Munna Bibi (opposite party no. 2) sold 2.62 acres of land to Shri Rampadarath Singh (opposite party no. 1) by executing a sale-deed on the 9th October, 1964, for a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. The document was in due course, presented for registration, and execution was also admitted before the Sub-Registrar; but before the process of registration could be completed by the Sub-Registrar by endorsing the necessary certificate on the document under Section 60(1) of the Indian Registration Act 1908, and the copying out of the endorsement and the certificate in the relevant registrar under Section 61 (1) the petitioner obtained a certified copy of the sale-deed on the 14th November, 1964. On the 28th November, 1964 he filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Act before the Collector, enclosing, along with the application, a chalan showing deposit of the entire purchase money with an additional sum of ten per cent thereof as required by the proviso to Clause (1) of Section 16(3). The Collector thought that the application was validly presented, and took steps on 30th November, 1964, to put the applicant in possession of the property. The applicant claimed to be a co-sharer and, as such entitled to the right of pre-emption recognised in Section 16(3) (iii) of the Act. He was also given possession as an interim arrangement under Clause (ii) of Sub-section (3) of Section 16, pending the disposal of his application. It is, however admitted by all concerned that the process of registration was completed only on the 30th November, 1964, two days after the presentation of the application by the petitioner. It is also admitted that the certified copy of the sale-deed filed by the petitioner on the 28th November, 1964, was an exact copy of the sale-deed, though it could not possibly contain the endorsement and certificate referred to in Section 60(1) of the Registration Act as these took place two days later. Opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are alleged to be subsequent transferees from Shri Rampadarath Singh (opposite party no. 1), the transfer having taken place on the 5th December, 1964.

3. The learned Collector of Patna, by his order dated the 16th April, 1966, held that the petitioner was a co-sharer of the transferor, Premwati Devi, and as such, was entitled to re-conveyance of the property by the transferee in his favour, as provided in Section 16(3) (iii) of the Act. Before the Collector, no objection was taken to the maintainability of the application on the ground that, on the date of the filing of the application, viz., 28th November, 1964, the transfer in favour of Rampadarath Singh was not complete; this point was taken up for the first time before the learned Commissioner who, however, rejected it, holding that, in view of the admitted fact that the registration was completed on the 30th November, 1964, there was no invalidity in the proceeding resulting in the order in favour of the petitioner. But, when the matter was taken up before the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, by way of Appeal against the Commissioner's order, this point was argued at some length, and the learned Member, relying on some of the decisions of this court, held that, on the date of the presentation of the application by the petitioner on the 28th November, 1964, the transfer was not completed and that there was no valid presentation, in as much as the petitioner did not comply with Rule 19(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of S