Judgment 1. The petitioners, by two sale deeds, dated the 21st of April, 1969. purchased 0.12 acre of land in Plot No. 1.707 and Plot No. 1708 (whole), appertaining to khata No. 1713 situate in village Chhotki Kako. from respondent No 5 for a total consideration of Rs. 3,000/-execution of the two sale deeds was admitted before the registering authority on the said date, but they were copied out in the prescribed register, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. on the 10th of May, 1969. Respondent No. 4, who owns plots Nos. 1709 and 1702 adjoining the land transferred made an application under Sec.16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. 1961 (Bihar Act 12 of 1962) -- hereinafter referred to as "the Act" -- before the Subdivisional Officer, Jehanabad (respondent No. 3) on the 29th of April. 1969 Before making the application, he had deposited the purchase money under the two sale deeds, together with a sum equal to ten per centum thereof. Respondent No. 3 issued notices of the application to the petitioners and respondent No. 5 on the 1st of May. 1969. By his order, dated the 25th of August, 1969, a copy whereof is annexure "3" to the writ application, respondent No. 3 allowed the application. The petitioners went up in appeal against the said order, and the Additional Collector. Gaya (respondent No. 2). who heard the appeal, by his order, dated the 14th of April. 1970, a copy of which is annexure "4" to the writ application, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of respondent No. 3 (Annexure "3"). Respondent No. 4 then filed an application in revision before the Board of Revenue, which was finally heard by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue (respondent No. 1) who, by his resolution dated the 1st October, 1970. & copy of which is Annexure "5" to the writ application, set aside the order of the Additional Collector (Annexure "4") and restored that of the Subdivisional Officer (Annexure "3"). Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the present application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari quashing the resolution of respondent No. l as contained in Annexure "5" to the writ petition. 2. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the present application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari quashing the resolution of respondent No. l as contained in Annexure "5" to the writ petition. 2. The only point urged by learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondent No. 3 acted without jurisdiction in passing the order dated the 1st of May. 196JL entertaining the application of respondent No. 4 before the sale deeds were copied out in the prescribed register in accordance with the provisions of the INdian Registration Act and consequently final order, dated at the 25th of August 1969 passed by him was also without jurisdiction. 3. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Hiralal Aggarwal V/s. Ram-padarath Singh ( AIR 1969 SC 244 ) that the right of reconveyance under Sec.16 of the Act accrues only when the registration of a sale deed is complete, as required by Sections 60 and 61 of the Registration Act and not before. In other words the right of reconveyance does not accrue before the sale deed is copied out in the books maintained for the purpose by the registering authority, following the above decision, the same view has been reiterated by a Bench of this Court, in Kauleshwar Singh V/s. Par-manand ( AIR 1972 Pat 407 ). It may be stated that the same view had been taken in three earlier unreported Bench decisions of this Court, which have been referred to in Kauleshwar Singhs case. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the application of respondent No. 4 filed before respondent No. 3 was not maintainable and that respondent No. 3 could not have entertained that application, and, consequently, the orders passed by him on the 1st of May. 1969 issuing notices to the petitioners and respondent No. 5 and the final order as contained in Annexure "3" allowing the said application were without jurisdiction. 4. It has been contended by Mr. K. D. Chatterji. who has appeared for respondent No. 4. that, as the aforesaid point was not taken in any of the Courts below the petitioners should not be allowed to raise it for the first time before this Court. It has been stated on affidavit in the writ petition filed before this Court that the point was raised before respondent No. 1. The resolution of respondent No. 1. that, as the aforesaid point was not taken in any of the Courts below the petitioners should not be allowed to raise it for the first time before this Court. It has been stated on affidavit in the writ petition filed before this Court that the point was raised before respondent No. 1. The resolution of respondent No. 1. however, does not show that the point was raised before him. and we will proceed on the assumption that it was not raised there. In our opinion, as a writ of certiorari is sought in this case on the ground of absence of jurisdiction, the point urged on behalf of the petitioners can be allowed to be raised for the first time even before this Court. In Halsburys Laws of England, Third Edition Volume 11. at page 75. Article 138 it is stated: ".....Where certiorari is sought on the ground of absence or excess of jurisdiction, bias by interest, fraud or breach of natural justice extraneous evidence of these matters will be admissible, and indeed necessary, if they are not apparent on the face of the record... In support of this statement of law, the decision in Rex V/s. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal (1952-1 KB 338) has been referred to. In that case. Morris. L. J. observed as follows:- - "It is plain that certiorari will not issue, as the cloak of an appeal in disguise. It does not lie in order to bring up an order or decision for rehearing of the issue raised in the proceedings. It exists to correct error of law where revealed on the face of an order or decision, or irregularity, or absence of or excess of, jurisdiction where show....." The observation in the passage quoted above was approved by the Supreme Court in T. C. Basappa V/s. T. Nagappa ( AIR 1954 SC 440 ). 5 The fact that in the instant case the two sale deeds were not copied out in the books maintained for the purpose by the registering authority before the 10th of May. 1969 is not in dispute. We have been actually shown copies of the two sale deeds which show that they were copied out only on the 10th of May 1969. 1969 is not in dispute. We have been actually shown copies of the two sale deeds which show that they were copied out only on the 10th of May 1969. In the circumstances, the order passed by respondent No. 3 (Annexure "3"), which has been affirmed by respondent No. 1 by his resolution (Annexure "5") was without jurisdiction and a writ cannot be refused to the petitioners on the ground that the question of jurisdiction has been raised for the first time before this Court and it was not raised before the Courts below. 6. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the application and direct that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the orders of respondent No. 3 as contained in Annexure "3" and the resolution of respondent No. 1 as contained in Annexure "5". As the point of jurisdiction was not raised in the Courts below, there will be no order as to costs.