BY COURT A proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, was started against Narayan Bikram Shah who is now dead. In that proceeding notices were issued to number of transferees from him and other members of his family. These petitions are on behalf of the transferees whose transfers have been annulled under the provisions of Section 5 (i) (iii) of the Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in all the four cases the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners have been executed before the 9th September, 1970, although they have been registered on the 27th November, 1970. On registration, it was contended that the title passed from the date of execution, which in all the cases is prior to the 9th of September 1970. Learned counsel further pointed out that the only reason given by the learned Additional - Member Board of Revenue for ignoring these transfers is that the transfers have been registered after the 9th of September, 1970 without obtaining the prior permission of the Collector. Learned counsel contended that although the registration has taken place after the 9th September, 1970 but since the execution was before that date, in view of the provisions of section 47 of the Indian Registration Act, the title passes from the date of the execution. Reference in this connection was made to the decisions in the cases of Faiya-Uddin Khan v. Mt. Zahur Bibi, Chander Singh Vs. Jamuna Prasad Singh, Smt. Sudama Devi Vs. Rajendra Singh and M/s Purtabpore Co. Vs. State of Bihar. In. our view the learned counsel is correct in so far as this part of argument is concerned. If it is accepted that the execution was before the 9th of September 1970 as is the petitioners raise, then since the title passes from the date of execution, as held in all these cases, the authorities under the said Act, are not entitled to ignore these transfers or annul them on the ground that the transfers had taken place after the relevant date, namely, the 9th of September. 1970. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in all the four cases also pointed cut that the learned Additional Collector while disposing of the proceeding, had observed that the transfer in favour of the petitioner was genuine and valid. 1970. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in all the four cases also pointed cut that the learned Additional Collector while disposing of the proceeding, had observed that the transfer in favour of the petitioner was genuine and valid. Reference in this connection was made to the observation of the learned Additional Collector which is to the following effect:- "........There is much force in their argument and no genuine and valid transaction can have a better case." But it is to be observed that certain circumstances have been taken into consideration for coming to the conclusion that the transfers in favour of the petitioners were Farzi or Benami. Those circumstances, it appears to us, are all explainable and do not lead to a clear conclusion regarding the transactions being colourable transactions. It has been observed that the consideration was not paid in presence of the Sub-Registrar, but this fact in our view does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the transfers were not genuine transactions as the law does not require that payments have to be made before the Registrar. We also find that some adverse inference had been drawn on account of the fact that the petitioners were members of the joint Co-operative Farming Society. In our view no such inference could be drawn on account of the petitioners being members of such a Society. Indeed the policy of the State is to encourage the Co-operative movement. The crucial question, therefore, that had to be determined was the question of possession. We, however, do not find any finding of the Additional Collector on this aspect based on evidence. It has been held by this court in several cases that mere report of the officers of the State is no evidence. In the circumstances, we think that the proper order in this case would be to remand these cases and to direct re-investigation of all the relevant matters and the question of possession. If the transferees are in possession and the transactions are bona fide, there does not appear to be any reason why such transfers should be annulled. 4. We, accordingly, show these writ applications, quash the orders contained in Annexure 2, 3 and 4 and direct disposal of the proceeding against the petitioners in accordance with law. 5. We direct the petitioners to appear before the Additional Collector on the 29th of May 1978. 4. We, accordingly, show these writ applications, quash the orders contained in Annexure 2, 3 and 4 and direct disposal of the proceeding against the petitioners in accordance with law. 5. We direct the petitioners to appear before the Additional Collector on the 29th of May 1978. On that date another date should be fixed for hearing and notices should be given to the transferer or, if the transferer is dead, to his heirs. The parties including the State will be at liberty to adduce evidence 11 support of their respective cases. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.