RESOLUTION 1. Heard the parties through their learned lawyers. 2. This is a petition in revision against the order dated 25-6-1969 of the learned Subdivisional Officer, Arrah setting aside the order dated 30-11-1968 of the learned Deputy Collector in charge Land Reforms, Arrah allowing the application of petitioner Sheonath Singh for pre-emption in respect of plot no. 1048 of Khata No. 77 in village Karbasin District Shahabad. The petitioner has claimed pre-emption as he owns plot no 1047, which is adjacent south of plot no. 1048 in question. The learned Deputy Collector in charge Land Reforms had allowed pre-emption on the ground that the petitioner was a co-sharer and boundary raiyat. 3. The main point for consideration in this case is whether, as held by the learned Subdivisional Officer in appeal, a transaction by a registered deed of Exchange would fall outside the scope of Section 16 (3) (i) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961 (Act XII of 1962). 4. The petitioner has relied on the ruling of the Board in case no. 30 of 1968, reported in 1969 P.L.J.R. 18 (Rev), where it was held that “even if there was an exchange of property, it will be binding as between the two parties executing the deed and each one will have his rights and claims on the other as a result of the two deeds, but this cannot extinguish the rights of any other party. The consideration money has been mentioned as having been paid in the deed. A person aggrieved will have a case under Section 16 (3) of the Act against each of the two parties provided the ingredients of Section 16 (3) are satisfied." In that case the exchange was effected by two registered kebala deeds. In the present case however, there has been a single deed of exchange dated 1-8-1966 by which Ramnath Singh, brother of petitioner Sheonath Singh, transferred plot no. 1048 to the opposite party Bhairo Singh and Dudnath Singh in exchange for plot no. 1042 transferred to him by the opposite party. The consideration money has been indicated in the sale deed as Rs. 500/-. 5. The petitioner has stressed that the explanation to Section 16 (1) of the Act states that "transfer" does not include inheritance, bequest or gift and hence all other forms of transfer must necessary be included. 1042 transferred to him by the opposite party. The consideration money has been indicated in the sale deed as Rs. 500/-. 5. The petitioner has stressed that the explanation to Section 16 (1) of the Act states that "transfer" does not include inheritance, bequest or gift and hence all other forms of transfer must necessary be included. The definition of transfer as given in Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act is certainly wide enough to include transfer by exchange. In Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, "exchange" is defined as the mutual transfer by two persons of ownership of one thing for the ownership another, neither thing or both things being money only. However it is significant that while in Section 16(1) and in Section 16 (2) of Act XII of 1962, the words "transfer", exchange, lease mortgage, agreement or settlement "are mentioned, Section 16(3)(i) merely mentions the words "transfer mortgage, agreement or settlement “are mentioned. Section 16(3)(1) merely mentions the words “transfer”, exchange, lease, mortgage or settlement.” 6. It is also significant that in the proviso to Section 16 (3)(i) the word used is "purchase-money" and not "consideration money." The consideration money in a deed of exchange denotes only the notional value for the purpose of stamp valuation. It would be inequitable to equate consideration money with purchase money. 7. Furthermore, according to Section 16(3)(i) of the Act, the preemptor has to apply for transfer of the land to him on the terms and conditions contained in the registered deed. In the case of exchange, there are two difficulties that stand in the way of transfer of land to the preemptor on the terms and conditions contained in the deed. The first, as indicated above, is that consideration money cannot be equated with purchase money. The second is that the parties seeking exchange of land do so because of particular mutual advantages that are likely to accrue as a result of the exchange. Hence if one of the parties is ousted in favour of a third party, it will not be possible for the third party, to effect the transfer on the terms and conditions contained in the deed of exchange. 8. For the above reasons therefore, it is clear that the legislature had intentionally excluded transfer by exchange from the purview' of Section 16(3)(i) of the Act. 8. For the above reasons therefore, it is clear that the legislature had intentionally excluded transfer by exchange from the purview' of Section 16(3)(i) of the Act. The learned Additional Collector was therefore justified in setting aside the order allowing pre-emption passed by the learned Deputy Collector in charge Land Reforms. 9. The petition is accordingly rejected. Petition rejected