Judgment Prem Shanker Sahay, J. The petitioners have moved this Court for quashing the order of the Additional Member Board of Revenue, dated 7.7.1978. Annexure-1, the order of the Collector, Saharsa, dated 13.9.1976, Annexure-2, and the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector dated 3.5.1976, Annexure-3, passed under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The petitioners purchased plots no. 4284 and 4285 having areas of one bigha and eight dhurs on 31.12.1973 and it was duly registered on 6.8.1974. The petitioners also exchanged plot no 4288, which is adjacent east to plot no. 4285, from the owner on 17.10.1974 and it was duly registered on 9.11.1974. On 4.11.1974 the respondent no. 4 filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Act for preemption claiming to be the adjoining raiyat being owners of plot no. 4283 on which a Case was registered. The petitioners filed their objections saying that by virtue of exchange of plot no. 4288 they had also acquired the status of a boundary tenant and, therefore, the application filed by respondent no. 4 was not maintainable. The learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector rejected the contention of the petitioners by his order as contained in Annexure-3 and allowed the application for pre-emption. As against the aforesaid order the petitioners preferred appeal and the learned Collector. Saharsa, held that the deed was registered on 9.11.1974 after the application under Section 16(3) of the Act was filed by respondent no. 4 and in that view of the matter they having not acquired the status of a boundary tenant on the date of filing of the application, the right of preemption could not be defeated and he, therefore, dismissed the appeal. The petitioners preferred a revision and on similar ground the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, rejected the contention of the petitioners by his order as contained in Annexure-1. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the petitioners have filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 4 in which it is stated that it has been wrongly stated that the exchange of plot no. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the petitioners have filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 4 in which it is stated that it has been wrongly stated that the exchange of plot no. 4288 was made by the petitioners on 17.10.1974 and even if it was done subsequently and registered on 9.11.1974 it was with the sole object of defeating the right of preemption of respondent no. 4. Mr. Umeshwar Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that the courts below have committed an error of law in holding that the petitioners had not acquired the status of an adjoining raiyat on the date when the application for preemption was filed on 4.11.1974. He has further submitted that the document for the ex-chance was executed on 17.10.1974 but it was actually registered on 9.11.1974 and it will date back to the date of the execution (17.10.1974) and, therefore, the petitioners were adjoining raiyat on 4.11.1974 of the two plots in question and they were entitled to resist the application filed by respondent no. 4, having equal status. Shri Parmeshwar Prasad Sinha, appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4, has on the other hand, submitted that the courts below have taken the correct view of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court and by our own High Court in different judgments which I will presently discuss. 4. It has been held by a Full Bench decision of our own High Court in the case of Ramchandra Prasad Shrivastava Vs. Prasidh Narain Singh that the right of preemption can be defeated if before the date of application, the transferred himself acquires the same status in relation to the transferred land. In the calc of Radha Krishna Lakshml Narain Toshniwal Vs. Sridhar Ramchandra Alshi it has been held that in order to defeat the law of preemption by any legitimate means is not a fraud on the part of either the vendor or vendee and a person is entitled to steer clear of the law of preemption by all lawful means Thus, in view of the aforesaid decisions if the petitioners exchanged plot no. 4288 in order to become an adjoining raiyat of the purchased plots their action cannot be said to be illegal rather it must be held that it was permissible under the law. But the question for consideration is that on what date the petitioners became the adjoining raiyat; on 17.10.1974 or on 9.11.1974 the date on which the registration was made and the application for preemption was filed on 4.11.1974. A similar point came for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Hira Lal Agrawal Vs. Rampadarath Singh & ors where the question arose when the application under Section 16(3) of the Act could be filed by the preemptor and whether the time will run from the date of the execution of the document or from the date of the registration. It was held that the time had to be computed from the date of actual registration and any application filed prior to that will be premature. It was further argued, in that case, that even if the registration was done subsequent to the execution it will relate back to the date of execution and it has been held that it cannot be argued on the basis of Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act that once registration is effected the title under the sale deed relates back to the date of execution of the sale deed so is not to render the application presented prior to the completion of registration as premature. In the case of Ram Saran Lal Vs. Most. Domini Kuer it has been held that the demand for preemption was actually made before registration of a document and, therefore it was not valid. In Radha Krishna Lakshmi Narain's case (Supra) it has also been held that a suit for preemption brought on the basis of an agreement is without any cause of action and there is no right for preemption which could be claimed. In the case of Bishan Singh Vs. Khazan Singh it has been held that the right being a weak right it can be defeated by all legitimate methods, such as the vendor attaining the status of a superior or equal right being substituted in his place. Thus on a careful consideration of the points raised, in my opinion, the Courts below have taken the correct view of law and though the petitioners had exchanged plot no. Thus on a careful consideration of the points raised, in my opinion, the Courts below have taken the correct view of law and though the petitioners had exchanged plot no. 4288 on 17.10.1974 it was actually registered on 9.11.1974 and prior to that the application for pre• emption was filed on 4.11.1974 and on that date the petitioners cannot be held to be on the boundary of the two plots in question. 5. The application therefore fails. But, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.