Judgment 1. In this writ application under Arts, 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the pre-emptor-petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21-3-1979 passed by the Additional Member. Board of Revenue (annexure 5) as well as the order dated 28-6-1975 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Banka (annex - 3) dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under S.16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Md. Rafiq Ansari executed two sale deeds on 26-2-1974; one in favour of Sudin Sah (respondent No. 4) in respect 81- decimals of land and the other in favour of Chhabo Sah (respondent No. 5) in respect of 271/4 decimals of land out of plot No 1344 of khata No. 143 lying in village Ahiro, police station, Dhorahia district Bhagalpur. The consideration money mentioned in the aforesaid two deeds Rs. 3500.00 and 1000.00 respectively. The registration of both the sale deeds was completed on 11-3-1974. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 4500.00 together with ten per cent thereon as required under the Act in the treasury in favour of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and filed one application in respect of both the sale deeds on 7-5-1974 under S.16(3) of the Act, claiming himself to be adjoining raiyat of the portions of the aforesaid plot conveyed to respondents 4 and 5. 3. Respondents 4 and 5 appeared and filed rejoinder to the application filed under S.16(3) of the Act. In their joint rejoinder petition it was alleged, inter alia, that as there were two separate sale-deeds with separate and different area and consideration money in favour of two different persons one application for pre-emption is not at all maintainable. It was also alleged that as Chaman Sah father of respondents 4 and 5 holds land in the boundary of the aforesaid transferred lands, they also become adjoining raiyats and the petitioner cannot claim pre-emption. 4. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the application under S.16(3) of the Act on the ground that one application was not maintainable in respect of two transactions and also on the ground that the father of the respondents 4 and 5 is in the boundary of the lands transferred to them. 4. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the application under S.16(3) of the Act on the ground that one application was not maintainable in respect of two transactions and also on the ground that the father of the respondents 4 and 5 is in the boundary of the lands transferred to them. On appeal by the petitioner his claim for pre-emption was allowed on the ground that the application under S.16(3) filed by the petitioner is maintainable and that the petitioner is the adjoining raiyat, whereas respondents 4 and 5 are not the adjoining raiyats of the lands transferred to them. Respondents 4 and 5 filed revision application under S.32 of the Act before the Member, Board of Revenue, which was heard by Mr. K. M. Zuberi, Additional Member, Board of Revenue, and he rejected the claim of the petitioner for pre-emption mainly on the ground that there being two separate sale-deeds one application for pre-emption is not maintainable. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that since the aforesaid two purchasers are sons of Chaman Sah and they claim to be adjoining raiyats of the lands transferred to them on the basis of the fact that their father holds land in the boundary of the transferred lands, the transaction is one and the application is maintainable. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 that since there are two different sale-deeds in favour of two different persons, the transactions are two different transactions and therefore a single application under S.16(3) of the Act is not maintainable at all. It has also been contended on their behalf that it has not been pleaded in the application under S.16(3) of the Act that respondents 4 and 3 are members of a joint family and the purchases made in their names were made by their joint family and that they are not their self acquisitions and exclusive properties. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the petitioner to show that the respondents 4 and 5 are members of a joint family and the purchases made by them under the aforesaid sale deeds were not their separate acquisition or exclusive properties, rather they were of the joint family. 6. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the petitioner to show that the respondents 4 and 5 are members of a joint family and the purchases made by them under the aforesaid sale deeds were not their separate acquisition or exclusive properties, rather they were of the joint family. 6. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent-4 and 5 the main question to be decided is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above, both the sale deeds taken together will be a single transaction and a single application under S.16(3) of the Act will be maintainable. 7. In order to appreciate the point involved in this case the relevant provision of S.16(3)(i) is quoted herein below :- "16(3)(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 the 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 per cent thereof is deposited in the prescribed manner within the said period." R.19 of the Bihar Land Ceiling Rules which prescribes the manner in which the purchase money together with a sum of ten per cent thereof should be deposited is quoted herein below :- "19. Application by a co-sharer or a raiyat of adjoining land for transfer of land under S.16(3).- (1) Application by a co-sharer or raiyat of adjoining land for transfer of land under S.16 (3) shall be in Form L. C. 13 and the purchase money together with a sum equal to ten per cent thereof shall be deposited in the Treasury/Sub-Treasury of the district within which the land transferred is situated. (2) A copy of the challan, showing deposit of the amount under sub-rule (1) together with a copy of the registered deed, shall be filed along with the application in which also a statement to this effect shall be made." From a perusal of S.16(3)(i) of the Act it appears that an adjoining raiyat or a co-sharer is entitled to pre-emption on the same terms, and conditions as contained in the deed of transfer. The terms and conditions of the sale deed will include purchase money which is - the actual consideration for the sale. 8 As it has been mentioned above, in the present case one sale deed has been executed by Rafiq Ansari in favour of respondent No. 4 in respect of 81 3/4 decimals of land for a sum of Rs. 3500.00 and the other sale deed has been executed in respect of 271/4 decimals of land for a sum of Rs. 1000.00 in favour of respondent No. 5. The clause referred to above contemplates only one transaction and the purchase money is also intended to be one unit. 9. In this case total consideration money of both the sale deeds referred to above together with ten per cent thereof has been deposited by the petitioner in the treasury by challans and he filed a single application. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that since opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 are brothers and claim to be adjoining raiyats on the basis of the fact that their father holds adjoining land to the lands purchased by them, one application for the both transactions is maintainable. There is no substance in the aforesaid submission, as from the aforesaid circumstances it cannot be said that both the sale deeds taken together constitute only one transaction. Further, as mentioned above, no case has been made out in the application filed under S.16(3) of the Act on behalf of the petitioner that the two brothers i.e. respondents 4 and 5 are members of the joint family and the purchases in their names were, in fact, made on behalf of the joint family, though the sale deeds stand in their names separately. No case has also been made out by the petitioner that purchases made by respondents 4 and 5 were not their separate acquisition. No evidence has been adduced on the points mentioned above. No case has also been made out by the petitioner that purchases made by respondents 4 and 5 were not their separate acquisition. No evidence has been adduced on the points mentioned above. The onus of proving that the two sale deeds constituted only one transaction was on the pre-emptor which he neither pleaded nor proved and that being the state of affairs, no finding can be given that there is only one transaction in respect of which only one application is maintainable. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it appears that the two sale deeds are different transactions. One of the terms of the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No. 4 is that the land was transferred in his favour for a consideration of Rs. 3500.00 and other sale deed is that the purchase has been made for a consideration of Rs. 1000.00 only. However, there may be cases in which though purchase has been made under two sale-deeds but both the sale-deeds may constitute one transaction and the consideration money may form one unit and in that case one single application under S.16(3) of the Act may be filed. 12. Further it is not the case of the applicant that he deposited the consideration money of each of the sale deeds together with ten per cent thereof separately under two challans, one in the name of respondent 5 in respect of the sale deed standing in his name and the other in the name of respondent No. 5 in respect of the sale-deed standing in his name. Had that been the case of the applicant, the question of applicability of doctrine of election would have been considered, but this point has not been raised at all on behalf of the petitioner. 13. For the reasons stated above. I find no merit in the application and it is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.