JUDGMENT Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. The petitioners made an application under section 16 (3) of the Bihar, Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming right of pre-emption in regard to plot nos. 1319 and 1320, fully described in the writ application, transferred by the respondent no.7 to the respondents 3 to 6 by a registered document. They alleged that plot nos. 1318 and 1321 belong to them and they are, therefore, adjoining raiyats within the meaning of the Act. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms dismissed the application by his order as contained in Annexure 3, but, on appeal, the same was allowed by the Additional Collector as per Annexure 1. The respondents moved the Board of Revenue respondent no. I, under lection 32 of the Act, and the Member, Board of Revenue by Annexure-2 all owed the application, dismissed the pre-emption petition and restored the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms. The petitioners in the present case now pray for quashing of these orders. 2. The title of the petitioners to plot no. 1321 is not in dispute and they are, therefore adjacent raiyats so as to maintain the claim of pre-emption. However, the respondents disputed their claim to plot no. 1318 and it was asserted that this plot belongs to the purchaser respondents which fact makes them also adjacent raiyats so as to defeat the right of pre-emption. The respondent no.1 accepted this part of the case of the respondents for dismissing the action and all wing tile revision petition. 3, Mr. Renuke Sharma contended that since the respondents' claim over plot no. 1318 is not basted on a registered document, the same could not have been accepted in view of the decision in Basudeo Rai and others vs. Altan Rai and others She further argued that the Member, Board of Revenue, seriously erred in making out a third case of acquisition of title by adverse possession which was not pleaded by the respondents. The petitioners clamed title to the suit plot by a registered document of 1968 and it was urged that the plea in defence was not permissible after a period of three years of the execution of the Bale deed in 1968. Lastly, Mrs. The petitioners clamed title to the suit plot by a registered document of 1968 and it was urged that the plea in defence was not permissible after a period of three years of the execution of the Bale deed in 1968. Lastly, Mrs. Sharma challenged the power of the Board of Revenue while acting under section 32 of the Act, to examine the facts and reverse the findings recorded by the Additional Collector. 4. Immediately after the close of the healing of the case on 5-9-1985, the writ application was dismissed with the observation that reasons word follow. Accordingly, this judgment is now being pronounced. 5. On the scope of section 32 of the Act, the learned counsel argued that the power to consider the evidence and decide disputed question of fact vests in the Deputy Collector Land Reforms before whom the application was file d and the Additional Collector, the first appellate authority, and not in the Board of Revenue vested with revisions power. The respondent no. 1 should have confined himself to the examination of the legal position only. A reference was made to the powers of the High Court at the second appellate stage. I am afraid, the analogy does not hold good. The extent of the power of the High Court while hearing a second appeal is confined by section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and so is the revisional Jurisdiction under section 116 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No such limitation can be spelt out from the language of section 32 of the Land Reforms Act. It is significant to note that the section does not even mention the expression 'revision' or 'revise', I, therefore, hold that under section 32 of the Act. The Board of Revenue has very wide power so as to include the authority to examine the legality or correctness of the orders of the Subordinate officers from every relevant angle and reappraise the evidence for that purpose. 6. The argument addressed on behalf of the petitioners with respect to the validity of the oral sale, in view of the decision in Basu deo Rai other, vs. Altan Rai and other (supra) has no merit. 6. The argument addressed on behalf of the petitioners with respect to the validity of the oral sale, in view of the decision in Basu deo Rai other, vs. Altan Rai and other (supra) has no merit. In the reported case, the oral purchase was alleged to have been made by the petitioners on 25.4.71, as stated in paragraph 10 of the judgment, that is, after coming into force of the Land Reforms Act, while in the present case it 'is said to have taken place much earlier. Section 16(2) of the Act, is not and could not have been retrospective in effect and covers only transactions after the commencement of the Act, and it has no application to the Case before us Besides, the respondent no 1 has not given effect to the oral transfer: it has after considering the evidence on the record come to a finding of acquisition of title made by the purchasers a long time back. 7. According to the case of the respondents 3 to 6, the title to plot no, 1318 was acquired by them during- the first decade of the century and a dispute with regard to the title and possession had arisen in 1955 in a case cognizable by the Gram Kutchery in which their right was recognised. Many relevant documents produced in the present case and the affidavits of several raiyats, baying land in the neigh-bourhood, were relied upon by the respondent no. 1 for accepting the vendees' case. They have been claiming title to plot no. 1318 and the respondent no.1 cannot be said to have made out a third case by recording a finding in their favour on the basis or long continued possession. In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the view taken in Annexure 2 8. There is no merit in the other contention of Mrs. Sharma either. She argued that after expiry of the period of three years from the date of the sale deed of the petitioners, the lame could not be challenged. It is not a case of getting the sale deed of 1968 set aside. According to the findings recorded in Annexure 2, the Member. Board of Revenue, bas upheld the title of the vendees over plot no. 1318 and, consequently, he has held that the executant or the sale deed had no title to transfer the same. It is not a case of getting the sale deed of 1968 set aside. According to the findings recorded in Annexure 2, the Member. Board of Revenue, bas upheld the title of the vendees over plot no. 1318 and, consequently, he has held that the executant or the sale deed had no title to transfer the same. In other words, the petitioners' sale deed was ineffective and inoperative and no title passed there all. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ application is fit to be dismissed. Application dismissed.