Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. -the petitioners pray to quesh the different orders passed by the authorities under the Bihar Lend Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 5961 (hereinafter referred to as act) under Sections 16 (3), 30 end 32 of the Act (as contained in Annexures-1, 2 and 3 ). By the order, as contained in Annexure-1 their prayer for reconveyance of the lands transferred in favour of respondent No.5 has been rejected. The appellate authority, vide Annexure-2, dismissed their appeal without even stating as to what points were urged before it. Vide Annexure-3, the revisional authority affirmed the aforementioned orders, though after going at some length in regard to various issues and laws raised before it. 2. The lands in question originally belonged to respondent No.6 which was transferred to respondent No.5 through a sale deed registered on j2-9-1969, The petitioners filed an application under Sec.16 (3) of the act on 21-9-1969 claiming themselves to be co-sharers and asserting that respodent no.5 is neither a co-sharer nor any adjoining raiyat of the lands transferred. On a prayer made under Sec.16 (3) (ii) of the Act, the petitioners were put in possession pending enquiry. On 10-12-1969 the transferee filed a rejoinder to the pre-emption application alleging, inter alia, that the application filed by the petitioner is not legally maintainable ; that the petitioners are neither co-sharers nor holders of adjoining land etc. It was also stated in the rejoinder that the transferee bad orally purchased the land measuring 1 katba 4 dburs towards east of the disputed land for Rs.85/-on 11-5-1996. in revisional survey plot No.203 and 1 katha 2 dhurs towards west in plot No.1011 on 12-4-1962 for Rs.90/- and that the vendor had executed receipts for getting consideration money from him. It has been asserted in the writ petition (Paragraph 9) that these transfers were collusive and such a stand has been taken only to make out a case and in order to support it some false and fabricated affidavits were also filed. No evidentialy value should have been given to these affidavits in the absence of the examination and cross-examination in court of the deponents. It has been further state that the petitioners relied upon the geneaology to support their claim of being co-sharers. No evidentialy value should have been given to these affidavits in the absence of the examination and cross-examination in court of the deponents. It has been further state that the petitioners relied upon the geneaology to support their claim of being co-sharers. The original authority vide Annexure-1 drew adverse inlerence against the petitioners from non filing of any counter affidavit. It further held that since the sale deed in question has been executed under the orders of the court it does not come within the purview of the Act. On these fine ings it held that there is no merit in the claim of reconveyance. The appeal of the petitioners was dismissed summarily though the appellate authority stated that it heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the order. The revisional authority vide Annezure-3, held that the sale deed in question comes within the purview of the Act. It, however, negatived the contention made on behalf of the petitioners that the oral sales in favour of the transferee were legally void and could not be relied upon. It also held in regard to the different affidavits filed by the transferees that they show genuineness of the receipts granted by the vendors. In Paragraph 3 it also took note of the fact that it was not argued that the petitioner is not an adjoining raiyat. It further held that once the sale deed is valia, the question of delivery of possession was immaterial. In regard to the oral sales, it also observed that since the transferees have put chased orally five sales of adjoining lands, each of a value less than Rs.100/- they were valid. 3. A supplementary affidavit as well as counter affidavit has been filed today which ate on the record. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; submits as follows :- (i) The revenue authorities have erred in law in accepting the story propounded by the transferee in regard to their alleged oral sales by completely mis-conceiving the law declared by this Court in this regard in Basudeo Rai V/s. Altan Rai AIR 1984 Patna 243. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; submits as follows :- (i) The revenue authorities have erred in law in accepting the story propounded by the transferee in regard to their alleged oral sales by completely mis-conceiving the law declared by this Court in this regard in Basudeo Rai V/s. Altan Rai AIR 1984 Patna 243. This legal position apart, it was not the case of the transferee that the alleged oral sales were followed up by any mutation of his name in the Sherista of the State of Bihar nor has the transferee filed any rent receipt or relevant extract of the Register-II. (ii) The appellate authority has committed a serious error of law in dismissing the appeal of the petitioners without even stating as to what points were pressed on behalf of the petitioners in support of their appeal. This aforementioned patent position has been overlooked by the revisional authority which ought to have remitted back the case to the appellate authority for reconsideration of the questions of fact and law. 5. Mr. Keshav Nath Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the transferee, submits that right of pre-emption being a weak right and the petitioners having been defeated before every revenue authority, this Court need not exercise its discretion in their favour, apart from the fact it is not permissible for this Court to appreciate evidence and record its own findings of fact after setting aside those recorded by the authorities. He also places reliance in this connection in the case of Syed Yakoob V/s. K. S. Radhakrishnan 1985 B. B, C. J.477 (Paragraph 20) and Dhanik Lal Mahto V/s. Additional member Board of Revenue, 1985 B. B. C. J.597. 6. It is well settled that this Court doe) not act as an appellate court. Perusal of evidence or of materials have to be done by the authorities under the Act which was not been done by the appellate authority. 7. It is not understandable to me as to how the revisional authority accepted the case of the transferee about their being five oral sales which was not even the case specifically pleaded in Paragraph 6 of the rejoinder dated 10-12-1969 filed before the original authority, a copy of which has been shown to me by Mr. Tiwary. 7. It is not understandable to me as to how the revisional authority accepted the case of the transferee about their being five oral sales which was not even the case specifically pleaded in Paragraph 6 of the rejoinder dated 10-12-1969 filed before the original authority, a copy of which has been shown to me by Mr. Tiwary. It was also not the case of the transferee in his rejoinder that after the alleged oral sales he got his name mutated in the sherista of the State of Bihar. From the three different orders passed by the authorities, it does not appear that the transferee filed any land rent receipt to coroborate his alleged possession on the basis of the alleged oral sales, 8. A Division Bench of this Court in Basudeo Rais case supra, where the writ petitioners, who were transferees, had taken up a defence of being adjoining raiyats on the basis of oral sales (see Paragraph 2) it squarely negatived (see Paragraph 8 ). Mr. Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the transferee, tried to distinguish the said case but in my view, it is not distinguishable and is binding on me. 9. In Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit as well as on the rejoinder filed before the original authority, the transferee had denied the claim of the petitioners of being adjoining raiyat of the land in dispute. The petitioners assert in the writ petition that they have proved the geneaology to show that they are adjoining raiyats. I however, do not find in the impugned orders that the petitioners were held categorically to be not adjoining raiyats or coshares, though the revisional authority stated that it was not argued that the petitioners are not adjoing raiyats. 10. A question, thus, arises as to whether I should exercise may discretion in favour of the petitioners, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case or not. 11. The order of the appellate authority in scanty and non-speafcing without applying its mind to the documents filed by one or the other parties. Thus, I am of the view that justice requires remittance of the case to the appellate authority for finding out as to whether the petitioners are adjoining raiyats or co-sharers as per their claim or not. The order of the appellate authority in scanty and non-speafcing without applying its mind to the documents filed by one or the other parties. Thus, I am of the view that justice requires remittance of the case to the appellate authority for finding out as to whether the petitioners are adjoining raiyats or co-sharers as per their claim or not. If the appellate authority holds that the petitioners are adjoining raiyats or co-shares of the lands transferred in that event it shall proceed to pass an order in terms provided under section 16 of the Act. 12. In the result, this writ application is allowed in part. The appellate as well as revisional orders, as contained in Annexures-2 and 3, are quashed and the case is remitted back to respondent No.3 (the appellate authority ). There shall be no order as to cost, however. 13. Let a writ of cetiorari issue. Writ Petition allowed.