D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been field by the petitioners seeking appropriate orders for quashing of the order dated 2.12.1994 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, in Revision case No. 426 of 1993 whereby the Revision Application filed by the petitioners against the order dated 6.4.1993 passed by the Additional Collector, Garhwa in C.S. No. 3 of 1991 -92 was dismissed. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 30.7.1993 of the Addl. Collector also whereby the order passed by the Dy. Collector Land Reforms, Garhwa dismissing the pre -emption application of the respondent No. 5 was set aside.
(2.) THE facts of the case, briefly stated, is that the disputed lands originally belonged to respondent No. 6. By a registered sale deed executed on 12.12.1990 and registered on 24.5.1991, he had sold the land to petitioner No. 1. Subsequently, the petitioner No. 1 by virtue of two separate sale deeds executed on 8.2.1991, had sold the portion of the disputed land to his own wife and also to petitioner No. 4. Both the sale deeds were registered on 2.1.1992. Prior to the date of registration of the two sale deeds the respondent No. 1 filed an application for pre -emption on 19.7.1991 against the petitioner No. 1 before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Garhwa, under Sec. 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. The claim for pre -emption made by the respondent No. 5 on the ground that he was an adjoining raiyat of the landed plot, was contested by the petitioner No. 1 primarily on the ground that he had already sold the disputed lands much prior to the date of the filing of the application for pre - emption and therefore, the application for pre -emption was not tenable. Further ground advanced was that subsequent vendee/purchaser was not impleaded as a necessary party within three months period of limitation from the date of registration of the sale deed and therefore, the claim for pre -emption was not maintainable. After hearing both the parties, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector dismissed the petition of the respondent No. 5 for preemption, by his order dated 6.4.1993. Against the aforesaid order of the Deputy Collector, the respondent No. 5 preferred an Appeal No. CA -1/93 -94 before the Addl. Collector, Garhwa (respondent No. 3) who, by order dated 30.7.1993 set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms on the ground that the transfer of the land by the petitioner No. 1 in favour of petitioner No. 2 and another, was a sham transaction intended to frustrate the claim of the pre -emptor. Against the aforementioned order of the Addl. Collector, the petitioners preferred revision before the Board of Revenue in revision case No. 426 of 1993. The Board of Revenue disposed of the revision application vide the impugned order dated 2.12.1994, upholding the order of the Addl. Collector dated 30.7.1993 and thereby rejecting the revision application of the petitioner. The main ground on which the Board of Revenue dismissed the revision application of the petitioners was that the sale deed executed by the petitioner No. 1 in favour of his wife was on 8.2.1992 which was much later to the date of the filing of the application for pre -emption on 19.7.1991 and therefore, it was inferred that such sale deed was executed with a view to frustrating the respondent No. 5's right of pre -emption. The plea advanced by the petitioners against the maintainability of the pre -emption petition due to non -joinder of the vendees was dismissed on the ground that there is no legal principle laying down that the subsequent vendee should be impleaded within three months from the date of the registration of the sale deed.
(3.) MR . Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order on the ground that both the Board of Revenue as well as the Addl. Collector had failed to appreciate the facts of the case and the principle of law involved in proper perspective and have arrived at an erroneous and misleading finding that the sale deeds executed by the petitioner No. 1 in favour of his wife was a sham and bencuni transaction, even in absence of any evidence or any allegation made by the pre -emptor. Learned Counsel submits that the impugned orders have been passed not only by wrong application of the principle of law but also on misconstruing the actual date of the transaction and the board of Revenue has committed thereby an error of record. Learned Counsel explains that after having lawfully acquired the lands from the original owner on 12,12,1990, the petitioner No. 1 had sold the disputed lands by two sale deeds executed on 8.2.1991, both of which were registered on 2.1.1992. The transfer of land by virtue of the sale deed unto the vendees was complete on the date of execution of the sale deed. Respondent No,;