JUDGMENT Ashwini Kumar Sinha, J. By this writ application the petitioner (pre-emptor) has prayed for quashing the order dated 3.10.1980 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Gaya, (Annexure 1) by which the Deputy Collector Land Reforms rejected the petitioner's application filed under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The pre-emptor preferred an appeal and the learned Collector, Gaya, (respondent no.2) passed an order on 17.11.1980 Annexure 2) by which he has upheld the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms. Thereafter the preemptor filed a revisional application before the Board of Revenue and the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar by a resolution dated 27.11.1982 (Annexure 3) affirmed the orders passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms and also the appellate order passed by the Collector, Gaya. Hence, the application on behalf of the preemptor for quashing aforesaid three orders. (Annexures 1, 2 and 3) 2. The facts of this case are that respondent nos. 5 and 6, by a registered sale deed dated 9.11.1979, transferred 20 dec. of land in plot no 51 (total area being 39 dec.) appertaining to khata no. 69 in village Delha Kalyanpur alias Bari Delha in favour of respondent no. 4 (Kalawati Devi) for Rs. 4500/- and put her in possession. On 10.12.1979 the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.4950/- to the credit of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Gaya. (Collector under the Act) and on 11.12.1919 the petitioner (pre-emptor) filed an application under section 16(3)of the Act, for re-conveyance of the land transferred by the sale deed dated 9.11.1979 on the ground that he was a raiyat holding the land adjoining to the land transferred and the pre-emptor's case was that the purchaser (respondent no. 4) was neither co-sharer nor a raiyat of the adjoining land. In the usual course notices were served upon respondents 4 to 6. Respondent (Kalawati Devi) (transferee) appeared and took a stand that she had already transferred the land, purchased by her, in favour of respondent no. 7 (Kanhai Yadav). The petitioner (pre-emptor) in reply to the stand taken by respondent no. In the usual course notices were served upon respondents 4 to 6. Respondent (Kalawati Devi) (transferee) appeared and took a stand that she had already transferred the land, purchased by her, in favour of respondent no. 7 (Kanhai Yadav). The petitioner (pre-emptor) in reply to the stand taken by respondent no. 4 asserted that the subsequent transfer in favour of respondent no.7 (Kanhai Yadav) by respondent no 4 (Kalwati Devi) was nothing but a sham and farzi transaction and that the document was ante-dated one. The further assertion on behalf of the petitioner (pre-emptor) was that respondent no. 4 (the first transferee) had executed the deed in favour of respondent no. 7 (Kanhai Yadav), who was none else than her own brother and the document in question was manufactured after purchasing ante dated stamps, which was presented for registration on 11.12.1979 at 2 P.M. after filing of the pre-emption application by the 'petitioner the same day at 10.30 A.M. Admittedly, respondent no. 4 (Kalawati Devi) the first transferee) executed the sale deed in favour of respondent no. 7 (Kanhai Yadav) on 6.12.1979, before the filing of the application under section 16 (3) of the Act, by the petitioner (pre-emptor) which was filed on 11.12.1979. The petitioner accepts this position, i.e., execution of the subsequent transfer deed in favour of respondent no.7 by respondent no.4, prior to the filing of his application under section 16 (3) of the Act. The petitioner, in paragraph 10 of his writ petition, has asserted that the aforesaid subsequent transfer in favour of respondent no 7, though made before the filing of the application under section 16 (3) of the Act, was really presented for registration after filing of his application under section 16(3) of the Act, though on the same date (the words have been underlined by me for emphasis). The petitioner asserts in this paragraph 10 of the writ application that his application was filed at 10.30 A.M. on 11.12.1979 and the sale deed dated 6.12.1979 in favour of respondent no. 7 was presented for registration at 2 P.M., though the petitioner had already filed his application on the same day at 10.30. A.M. in other words, the main stand of the petitioner (pre-emptor) is that though the first transferee (respondent no. 7 was presented for registration at 2 P.M., though the petitioner had already filed his application on the same day at 10.30. A.M. in other words, the main stand of the petitioner (pre-emptor) is that though the first transferee (respondent no. 4) had executed the sale deed in favour of respondent no 7 prior to the filing of the application under-section 16 (3) of the Act, still he (the petitioner) had a superior title than the subsequent (transferee as the sale deed was registered subsequent to the filing of the application under section 16 (3) of the Act. 3. The petitioner in paragraph 11 of his writ case as asserted that in support of his case that the subsequent transaction by respondent no.4 (first transferee) was nothing but a farzi one, filed affidavits of two persons, that is, of Bhagwan Singh Yadav and Ram Singh Yadav. The petitioner has further asserted in that paragraph that respondent no.4 (the first transferee) did not produce any evidence to rebut the same. 4. The learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms, by his order dated 3.10.1980 (Annexure 1) rejected the pre-emption application and held that the said land was subsequently transferred by respondent no. 4 (Kalawati Devi) (who was opposite party no.1 before the courts below) in favour of respondent no. 7 (Kanhai Yadav) and this subsequent transfer was made prior to the date of filing of the pre-emption application. He further held that for want of the subsequent transferee (Kanhai Yadav) (respondent no. 7) being impleaded as a party to the case, the farzi, collusive and sham nature of the transaction could not be investigated and thus the application was dismissed. As already stated above, the petitioner (preemptor) had filed a rejoinder petition to the objection filed by respondent no. 4 (the first transferee) and in this rejoinder the petitioner (pre-emptor) had definitely stated that the subsequent transfer by respondent no.4 in favour of Kanhai Yadav (respondent no.7) was a sham and farzi transaction and hence the right of the pre-emptor could not be defeated on that ground. 5. The learned Collector. 4 (the first transferee) and in this rejoinder the petitioner (pre-emptor) had definitely stated that the subsequent transfer by respondent no.4 in favour of Kanhai Yadav (respondent no.7) was a sham and farzi transaction and hence the right of the pre-emptor could not be defeated on that ground. 5. The learned Collector. Gaya, by his order dated 17.11.1980 (Annexure 2), in law, took up the same stand, that is, in the absence of the subsequent transferee on the record or in view of the fact that subsequent transferee has not, been impleaded as a party the question-whether the transaction was a farzi, collusive and sham-could not be gone into. 6. The petitioner, after filing the revisional application before the Board of Revenue on 28.8.1981 filed an application for adding the subsequent transferee (respondent no.7) (Kanhai Yadav) as a party in the case and prayed for issuance of notice to him so that the case of the petitioner about the farzi, sham and inoperative nature of the subsequent sale deed could be considered in his presence. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 5.3.1982 ordered for adding respondent no.7 (subsequent transferee) as a party to the case and a notice was issued to him. From the order of the Board it is clear that no body appeared on behalf of Kanhai Yadav, the subsequent transferee, who was impleaded as opposite party no. 2 before the Board by order dated 5.3.1982, as stated above. Thus, on the facts it is clear that the subsequent transferee (respondent no. 7) in whose favour the first transferee had admittedly executed the document prior to the filing of the application under section 16 (3) of the Act, was a party before the Board of Revenue and even then no body appeared on his behalf. 7. The learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, also took the same legal stand to the effect that the subsequent transferee (Kanhai Yadav) having not been made a party originally before the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms in the application under section 16 (3) of the Act, no investigation into the allegation of sham, farzi and collusive nature of the transaction in favour of Kanhai Yadav could be made behind his back, as the investigation could have adversely affected the interest of the subsequent transferee (Kanhai Yadav) (respondent no. 7). 7). The learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, took up this legal stand even though, according to his own order, the subsequent transferee (Kanhai Yadav) was already added as a party before him by his order dated 5.3.1982 and was very much a party in the proceeding before him. 8. That section 16 (3) of the Act, reads as follows:- "(i) When any transfer of land is made after the commencement of this Act, to any person other than a co-sharer or a raiyat of adjoining land, any co-sharer of the transferor or any raiyat holding land adjoining the land transferred, shall be entitled, within three months of the date of registration of the document of transfer, to make an application before the Collector in the prescribed manner for the transfer of the land to him on the terms and conditions contained in the said deed: Provided that no such application shall be entertained by the Collector unless the purchase money together with a sum equal to ten percent thereof is deposited in the prescribed manner within the said period, (ii) On such deposit being made the co-sharer or the raiyal shall be entitled to be put in possession of the land irrespective of the fact that the application under clause (i) is pending for decision: Provided that where the application is rejected, the co-sharer or the raiyat, as the case may be, shall be evicted from the land and possession thereof shall be restored to the transferee and the transferee shall be entitled to be paid a sum equal to ten percent of the purchase money out of the deposit made under clause (i). (iii) If the application is allowed, the Collector shall by an order direct the transferee to convey the land in favour of the applicant by executing and registering a document of transfer within a period to be specified in the order and if he neglects or refuses to comply with the direction the procedure prescribed in Order 21, Rule 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (v of 1908) shall be, so far may be, followed. It is well settled that the transfer is complete on the registration of the document and the pre-emptor becomes entitled to make an application for pre-emption after completion of the registration looking at section 16 (3) DQiJ.a:>i!QW rr~u~ on {urft b:1biy01CJ 1 It IS we settlea tnat ne tranSler IS comp ete 10J:>,IlOJ ~,rfJ vd b:H.tit>J'wJfJ:J ~d ([1;il2 d h . on t e registratIOn or the document an t e l~rlt5~Ot V5(,10m ~2srl::lI1J<llarfJ 225lrwk ' pre-emptor oecomes ent!t ed- to ma e an 10~115dt Jno""J.:jq ft:J I oj fEUD::; IT,!.1I2 i; dJiw application rot pre-emption alfer completion l~rrnsm b5dil:J2"Jq:'irB II i u5Ji2oq5b 2i of the registration. Looking atrllect.ipn 16 (3) ,D0I15Q-OI!;G :> n IiI IW ' ~ of the Act, it is abundantly clear that in ( , Mcti~frl~ {3')cbfuthe :Ac1!lthefi (us) absolutely ~ ij I is'rbv/$i'o~Ed'Ol'q:na:kingJ am:ordero:of pre- ptAAi a~itf!ro ;~2o;subsequen1!q tr~sferee on 1~} 1~'i2JtlJliIl fiiali 1t9rft p?e1'~inp{1onl1 kgainst '~e¥ff*qrYn~reQ~t5rsJgiso "\V61tISetflQlt that if "} the subsequent ttansferee is, iifTofat5t5land in I ¥b:fli qfjtnYtff~Cj,9itJ4ilrl PL~~NfXq in respect ,m{is'fh1ffi f6aip.hiHl-oer~~Jigbt5.p~~ been ~5theJ8 ~ nJHist,i~<¥ %fl.ri s ~1i31g:>~Jr2\nsfercc 1wjiJhpJ.otiR6iPf5t9bcPrB{mnttJ~p:)itPPt\bC1l~tion is J 5ttptd'.&I~il}}!nBlj5dt OJ La'Joi2:')'! 5d I1sd2 n bisq 5d OJ b5lIit[[a ad IIsrl2 :)~)1:>lullnl ) ~ ; 9, A few legal situations are arso wel estal:li!fld::l1l1g :nlJ 10 1!1~:J"J.:)q 051.P.l I.8mp mIl? blished. If the transfetee or the PToper y trans15bnu ::IbB(f1 Ii.wq:Jb ~rlJ 10 IUO V5!iQ(f: fers it to a second purcnaser oy "a aocument .(i) 52IJBb executed and registered before the filing of . too'/applieati;C)w,rthc<Jqcondl 1tUyXsfe)'ee gets a 1 It~ti~ tjt}olo the pp6PbrlI}! an.:d:;.tlU~.Se>i§rno que- nStibnrOt ids risJrtrbciJ1B <Wc:~by tJ.@ subse- . Member (A. K. Sinh~ J) 198-4 BBCJ '" .zV vBbsY qoo~ ms.n l::>S8 J>8'!1 quent application filed by a pre-emptor, as bsrl ..~1:-11..r.£1J b~,1 :irL 'r~~vit ;2Cf!W . C_ on ne cou a not e presum~ to nave any Know. 0t JOllq J[r~mJJ:Job ~rh b~W:J5X::> vlb~jJlmbfl edge (}f the application which 1)1ay b~ filed ()J rwiJ:>~2 1'JbfI!J nOI)E:> Iqq£ JIB ~o g iltt ::>rlJ . III future. The other legal situation is also well b,1;08 ~rll ::>'Q1~d '{J1£q 1> U;W \}:)A ~rh 10 (t) settled that Ill.the case where tne second sale b~'n~J1C1I; vbod OJT nonJ n:J'{J bf1,B 5.1JrT~fi411 'to f <Iced 'I!; e:tecutea ani:lreglstered atter Hug 0 .1Ind:>d .-.irl no the application for pre-emption, the second ,~ wduikbblel1:Ht\ bYJ:Jthe:.,t!oc:trfme .'Of lis IJm:rldomrand~ s~iot082 otiJrrite-}f'}anlsf6t>Hof -;ftropcrt!Jbl~ufu2 ')rlJ jj;{h j:>~1t:> :>rh oj br{£}? :.>onrn n:>~d Jon ~rllvsrt (v£bsY l!~rtrtB)I) :>':n~1 10. The difficulty arises only in a case 1Juq:;O b )fI1B:> I :>rl1 'J101 Jd II I /!(IlgnQ v 11Sq -6 'where the document of sale IS executed befQre flO'H::>iIc;qR ~rlJ ffI U0101:15\ bru;J 10J:)5110:.> filing 01 the. application under section 16(3) -B:9, iJ2::Jvn or ,,:JA JrlJ 'il) (0 i)I rlOlJ:>n l:Jbnu of the ~ct but is registered after its filills. No brw 1;<;11; I ,Hual;;: 10 10 ilBg:;,i I :)rIJ oJn I no i ,order of pre-emption can b~ made against the .UO'lE•~ ,II o. :>EdlLil JIIJ "0 . UJGfT JV' 11110:> otiginal transferee if he has tran~ferred the J'rl L. ,r'"d "bEfrI .)d bl JO:) v Gb Y stir ,)I to land to another person before filing of the -21:Jvbl' '.v)II blJJo:J ,ro,JRgru,Jv 'l :JrIJ 2£ ,:;.bsd aoolication for pre-emotion, that is, the exeJIl•,,1!p';)~O!J? ..arIO J<:..l,J)[!. .. l J ..JI." (j:) cution and registration are comoleted before .l\ .on JfI:JDIIOq<:::>'J) (',>1,,1 l ~11H)I,) Jjo't".!:nJ ~flling of the app,lica,tion under section 16(3) 10 o•tI;oH ,JJdrn'Jtll U.IO ,rb:>A DJflIEDl Jrlf of the Act. The first transferee is a good and n:)v:J bfli,J2 In3:J/ 2111. qJJ AooJ .:J1!oav;>JI valid Qwner of the property transferred to :>r11 ,1::1010 rrV/o 21£1 OJ gnfbl0:>:J£ ,lLg,1JorlJ him. The secQnd tra'l1sfer i~ hit by the doctriZEV! (vBbBY wdrrB)lj :)~n~tl{int jn:Jupndm n~ ofJis p~ndeni if it is made after die filing 21rt '{ mlrt ~101:>d \1}1Bq B 21: b5b!;Ji '!bB"rfc of tbe application unaer section 16tJ) ot the I> rl:>1Jm '{1:>V lBW bas ~8Q J f..c b01Jlb 1:>b10 Act, that is, execution and registratIon both . . .mt.cf :no'bd nmb."j5:>0'W OIb rr~ 11'11;11 after filing oflne appJication. bxcept tne Se'C- iI~d8f{':t'&~fer ~ i\~ flit By rwe:>;io\!t1lffie •f>f Ii s pendens it is gO(,d one, the s:cond tta'ff~e acquires a good title from tbe fi(st transferee. 21 bJIB 10 151U1813 '!flR H:JrlW (I)" There are no words in secfion 16(3) to d~bar ,w[i to In::>m:>:>n~mmo:> :.>r J 15J1R ~1)J>m the first transferee..from transferring the pro1:)lsr[i-o:> $, osrl:! 1:"l1jO n021:-q ., nn 01 t:>A oerty b~fore exoiry of the perlo.d of 1imitation~ -0:> '{IlL ,DrIBI gfrlfIlOlD£IO 1£'(1.G1 B 1 . JBX i f,1.1'UQ1\&hq~i.~eq tBri\\9ipJ~AM)f law, t.Jaa ..~el (.l ,BfTl1srl2 J{ .J) bPJ o 1984 BBCJ Ram Roop Yadav Vs Adl \Mqo,n \() ,~'&\, "c1~ ~ lWln tC)in~ \>1 t,{)\\:)~2-($) as oeserved above, if the subse2uent transfer ~•u\.. 1:"l1jO n021:-q ., nn 01 t:>A oerty b~fore exoiry of the perlo.d of 1imitation~ -0:> '{IlL ,DrIBI gfrlfIlOlD£IO 1£'(1.G1 B 1 . JBX i f,1.1'UQ1\&hq~i.~eq tBri\\9ipJ~AM)f law, t.Jaa ..~el (.l ,BfTl1srl2 J{ .J) bPJ o 1984 BBCJ Ram Roop Yadav Vs Adl \Mqo,n \() ,~'&\, "c1~ ~ lWln tC)in~ \>1 t,{)\\:)~2-($) as oeserved above, if the subse2uent transfer ~•u\.. >, \) \() ~~ I \l~"n\ <;\1"\- \n,,<3\'!n \)t'O:>~l \'I\n made in favour of respondent no. 7 (Kanhai 1.1\,\", {J,n< ~ .~\ ~,'I\ () <1, (\'/. t~ ("xC) '.~ "um' \ad~~~ i~ v~~\~~~~I\P~ go~~ ~¥~.i~ 't~h c~f Je~.pre~fif..i petitjq.q.~fu,,~t~Bn;lI¥ cHI .J.2 e\"Ql Sl.I.A ()OI tJaa ~\"Ql .1 1~. As already stated apove, th ~ ptttjtij b02sY .V lI'lll~r' /J•;qn£rlO.V oner (pre-emptor) took thf~ stand ~ the I.ar. ~ ... .. 0 I~mm liest, tha~ is, befo'e the.. le.aro{:d Deputy rl8f112 I r.w:>)I ,1()1 .:.1.2 U~\'J .}I.I.A .!: Collector Land Reforms, that the n:1ture 0f tI ~ '. ilnswlsJ .V transaction in favour of the subsequent Q ~l b51sb 1~b)0 5.rll1~niSWA-()O~1 .jf.J transferee was larZI and s am : .thought in. :>~bul-du2 .nrlni2.)f.Q i1 <:: '(d b5e2fJq 8\'1 faCt, he madt nn application for adding the{ .£nTs'f- . subsequent transferee as a party to the IPrQ<'8 .Q .'.0 1~b10 5rl 12DI[;8/\: u:~ .>I~ c:e~iAA:.du~g~ItT/1P~ atr~ stiee'td ~.¥&q regular application for addinff>ttt8~ub~dm~ t~ert:'ti:~qm~ 11i1lor~Oftie .}llChnIed AFO\¥it\~afam&bW,d'lJtoa,sN!rij~ ~gJ8~W Ilt1S.q QnO ~rh ]o'q :lJm~d2 d1105~ ..nM bnn tfie- prestmt pet noner \pre-emptor and, 10 I~J 'J9A '~nUJ)I rleilE2 JJf C SlTt1~ .~}I~\M f~ tn-e Suosequenftransfer.cc lV.aS111UP a ed2\ : 10rIOlfiJo'! orU 101- Uo~ .>1"'. (J as 'a partYJ rcsp.ondent .b~fore the _leamedlo. I1pj.!1S>I I' ?~)lt)t DrIB I1n2?)t 1nmu)1 )jrm?n A.~t~Ml ~e~Bf\ ~ dJ~n~.&Mtl also.rrtlHi'i.ce.9-. .aB~ 8 ~¥J~1Jqq~~n i£~sf~~ thfugh having been made a party before the Brl~ £1£1 ,,'I :norl2j){ flBIIB..! aeE Idl. Member (A. K. Sinha, 1) 395 ,~rll oj i~8d L~jjirn~' 21 5H:~ 5rh 11111' ~bi2£ Board.of Rl'venue did not ap'Dear Bod tho. '{JUq:;A! -1)~H11f.~' ~I1J "I:.rr tir. ,VJr•on1.UB l~,n ! ~t'f1e.~ -b~ i t~ 9P.el tf ~flr?leJ15 »o~t<t.ff o~grfo"'~ ~ue took the. same lej!;al stand as the teamed Dill W.81 ffl1W :':Jr t'blW:)E fit 1/320g21b rl2~it Colkctor and th~ learned Denuty Collector (d ,J'.. L f1 j(J,...mgul1l G. fiJ -to lrigH :>rll fI Land Reforms had taken. All th~ three courts -:>dClJ~1~r1 n~vlg 2fiOlj~~1 Ib ~dJ Tin gfllv1~2do heve1refused to 20 into the Question.. same lej!;al stand as the teamed Dill W.81 ffl1W :':Jr t'blW:)E fit 1/320g21b rl2~it Colkctor and th~ learned Denuty Collector (d ,J'.. L f1 j(J,...mgul1l G. fiJ -to lrigH :>rll fI Land Reforms had taken. All th~ three courts -:>dClJ~1~r1 n~vlg 2fiOlj~~1 Ib ~dJ Tin gfllv1~2do heve1refused to 20 into the Question.. whither ~ ::I15r J ,l~'/:"WOcr ,?:J~cd:;;2ml1"...)1.0 :)111 0 ,::1101 Kanbai Yadav (resnondent1no. 7 -, (subseaue.nt ~2J(.O:) u u. 1~rdo (,f :J(J IIIW transferee) was a real purchaser or whether 18rh 2f lC1()I.n~{C! ~llrfWrlJl0W ..i JJ .'J the sale deed executed in his favour tadlU1tt-1;12 1£cl a 10 fJJM2 :.rll101Ji.<.£lLOQ t5111£51 ~rlt edly executed pnor to the mg or the apph2B,N JJ£12d~rlJ flO!lQm1 ;';311c f)~fl~ S (I1 1"sch b~J cation un eT sectIOn OVJ 0 the Act) was -510 \ ,. C (> r I C" J (tiT b'jfl'I5:"/IO:J 10n merely f.arzi and sham. 2£ VBb£Y 1J.;r'c f'X L:.LBOlqrol lEd (10Jqm~ ('i' 13. b~ th~ fac(t~) arid;~ dif6bMst£'rlc~!,1BB tti65Vt~?ge I1fogm2eJtisfit:HOtth~JJCfH~ q\ilS\iBH wfPdlhet ~K~~111H~1y a~!rt, ~e~~on°cf'eetHI iHo~o<t wa~imr~l I prn?btiHt4 dP nwJth1#1 ?i\~ 1°¥,dt' d d d . dl . .L'IlJn~'Isr 10 b1s08 ee a m1tte y executed t11 11'1S laYouT prtor to Ith'e~t'ijfJfBij~plication under section 16 (3) of the Act, was merely farzi and sham has to be investigate~y any of the courts below. The case, therefore, has to go back to the first Court (that is, before the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms) for allowing ~ oppo~t~i!WfI}1.~ A~ lPiottt\"AH2 .li1~juce I evidence on the P1?Wt ~~I for a decis;on. i It wjll bef.gq~~setJtJ ~ ~ .~)JJl.b Yada., ; a8l~partJH~ ijJ;e.~~ if Itb.I't~iq~, fI~mJ d~to<b~"@idedl1&§I. 5t~~ m1oM<rt:)sf2dddif2 ded in the absence 0(21'Kanhai Yadav, it wjUPnQtib~l()him. , Il>WS1gA brrsrl~ [;lsT H~I ni .q.O ni£22uH £'tsj2uM "~1{2 .1G (ilJfl}i.,3n t!e 'iBWt."J.p~rthoft11oJif~~&m is al1Qw~d) (11btl :llJrciIT&IO,p ,C8nta,jQddlo,foiJO Annexures 1, 2 and 3 are set r 396 Lallan Kishorc Vs Tara Cha !lside and the case IS remitted back to the, first authority, namely, the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Oaya. fOt fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of this judgment and also by observing aU the directions given hereinbefore. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs. 15. It is worthwhile mentioning that , the learned counsel for the State of Bihar stated that in a case of pre-emption the State was not concerned. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs. 15. It is worthwhile mentioning that , the learned counsel for the State of Bihar stated that in a case of pre-emption the State was not concerned. Though the petitioner (preemptor) has impleaded Kanhai Yadav as a party to the writ case (as respondent no 7) and even though notice has been served upon him, no body has represented him (as before the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue). Aplication allowed.