JUDGMENT
B.P. Jha, J.
1. I shall dispose of these two writ petitions by a common judgment as they arise out of common orders.
2. In both these writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the validity of Annexures-1, 2 and 3. Annexures-1, 2 and 3 are common in both the cases.
3. These writ petitions arise out of a preemption application filed by Lallan Singh. In C.W.J.C. No. 72 of 1979, the petitioners are the subsequent purchasers. In C.W.J.C. No. 73 of 1979, the petitioners are the original purchasers.
4. Respondent Lallan Singh filed an 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’) in respect of a sale deed which was executed by Shrimati Shanti Devi in favour of Ashok Kumar Singh minor son of Baijnath Singh and Madan Kumar Singh minor son of Ramadhar Singh. The sale deed was registered on 30th December, 1976. On 9th February, 1977, respondent Lallan Singh filed a pre-emption application on the ground that he is an adjoining raiyat or a co-sharer. The concurrent findings of the authorities are that Lallan Singh is a co-sharer or an adjoining raiyat of the disputed plot.
5. The case of Ashok Kumar Singh and Madan Kumar Singh was that they had already sold the land by means of a sale deed dated 22nd January, 1977. The subsequent sale deed was not registered till 9th February, 1977, that is, the date on which the pre-emption application was filed.
6. The grievance of the learned Counsel of the petitioners in both the cases is that the pre-emption application ought to have been filed against the subsequent sale deed dated 22nd January, 1977. According to Section 16(3) of the Act, an application under Section 16(3) of the Act can be filed within the three months from the date of the registration. In view of the fact that the second sale deed was not registered till 9th February, 1977, as such the Court below was right in holding that no pre-emption application can be filed against the subsequent sale deed dated 22nd January, 1977 as the same was not registered till 9th February, 1977. It is, therefore, clear that the pre-emption application was maintainable so far as the first sale deed is concerned.
7. A pre-emption application is required to be filed against the first sale deed. The only thing which is required is that the vendee of the second sale deed ought to be added as a party in the pre-emption application. It is an admitted position that the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 72 of 1979 who are the subsequent purchasers have been added as parties in the pre-emption case. Therefore, in the present case, no prejudice will be caused to the subsequent purchasers. Hence, I hold that in a case of this type, it is not necessary to file a pre-emption application in respect of the subsequent sale deed which was not registered on the date of filing an application for pre-emption. It is also not necessary to file a pre-emption application against the subsequent sale deed as all the authorities have concurrently held that the subsequent sale deed is a sham transaction.
8. I, therefore, uphold the concurrent findings of all the authorities and hold that it is not necessary to file a pre-emption application against the subsequent sale deed dated 22nd January, 1977 as the same has been found to be a sham transaction.
9. In these circumstances, I dismiss both the writ petitions but without any costs.
S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.
I agree.