The pre-emption right accrues upon the final registration of a sale deed, and the application must be filed within the statutory time limit. The interpretation that registration relates back to the date of execution, making the purchasers owners from that date, was rejected.

Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.

The pre-emptors are in appeal in these four Letters Patent Appeals arising out of four writ petitions, which had been filed by the three respective vendees (purchasers). Those four writ petitions being CWJCs No. 5018, 10225, 10314 and 10328, all of 2000, were heard and allowed by a common judgment and order dated 27.07.2004 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. Pursuant to notices issued, parties have appeared. These Letters Patent Appeals were admitted and are now for final hearing. The facts are not in dispute.

3. It appears that one late Sitaram Sah had agricultural lands in Village - Khanpur, PS-Barharia, District-Siwan. One of the boundary raiyats was late Baldeo Prasad. Sitaram Sah intended to sell certain agricultural lands. First, he executed a sale deed on 09.02.1990 in respect of about 5 kathas of land in Plot No 721 on the northern side thereof. The sale was in favour of writ petitioners-respondents No 1, 2 and 3, namely, Punyadeo Sharma, Master Sharma and Prithivilal Sharma, who are all sons of Asharfi Sharma. The said sale deed was presented for registration on the same very day though the registration was completed on 07.01.1992. Baldeo Prasad, having come to know of the sale deed upon its registration, filed an application in terms of Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (for brevity, the Ceiling Act), for pre-emption on 31.03.1992. There is no dispute that the application for pre-emption was within three months of the registration, as required by Section 16 (3) of the Ceiling Act. Similarly, a second piece of land, adjacent to this first piece, was sold by Sitaram Sah to Prithivilal Sharma by deed executed on 13.12.1990 and presented for registration on the same day, which registration was completed on 08.09.1993 and, soon thereafter, within limitation, Baldeo Prasad filed pre-emption application. A third contiguous land was then sold by Sitaram Sah in favour of Master Sharma again on 13.12.1990 whose registration was completed on 08.09.1993 and was sought to be preempted by Baldeo Prasad within limitation. A fourth portion of contiguous land was sold by Sitaram Sah in favour of Punyadeo Sharma by sale deed again dated 13.12.1990 which was finally registered on 18.09.1993 having been presented for registration on 13.12.1990 itself, which was, within limitation, sought to be preempted by Baldeo Prasad. Accordingly, four separate pre-emption applications were registered.

4. The first Court decided in favour of the preemptors. It clearly held that the preemption application was within time. It further held that Baldeo Prasad was a boundary raiyat of Sitaram Sah and was also boundary raiyat in respect of the lands being sold as Baldeo Prasad was also boundary raiyat in respect of each of the plots of land being sold. On that finding, the pre-emption applications were allowed. The appellate Court, that is the District Collector, reversed these four decisions arising from the four pre-emption applications in four appeals against which the pre-emptors went to Board of Revenue in revision. Learned Member, Board of Revenue clearly held that the order of the first Court was correct. On the day when the first sale deed was registered, the pre-emptors were boundary raiyats and, as such, they had a right to preempt the sale. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, thus, reversed the orders passed in the appeals in all the four revision applications and restored the order of the first Court allowing preemption. Being aggrieved by that, the vendees (purchasers) filed four writ petitions which, as noted above, were allowed by learned Single Judge. Hence, these intra-Court appeals.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge erred in law in holding that no sooner the first sale was registered, registration takes effect retrospectively from the date of application and, thus, the purchaser be