Judgment S. B. Sinhn, J. 1. All these three applications involving common questions of fact and law and are taken up together for hearing and being disposed of by common judgment. 2. Petitioners of all these cases claimed their independent right, title and interest. Their names have been entered in the survey settlement records of right which was published prior to 22-10-1959. According to the petitioners, they have been paying rent to the State of Bihar. However, their land ceiling proceedings were initiated against Anand Prasad Singh and his grand son sanjay Kumar Singh. Both the aforementioned land ceiling proceeding were amalgamated However, in the draft statement published in terms of section 10 (2) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said act) the lands of the petitioners |have been included. Objection was filed by the petitioners alleging therein that the names of their fathers had been entered in the revision survey records of right and their names also had been entered in Register II maintained by the State of Bihar. The said objection of the petitioners was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 25-5-1986 (Annexure-2), holding, inter alia, that the petitioners have not been able to prove that they had made any arrangement for irrigation of the said land and they are not resident of the district as also that they have not proved as to how their names have been entered in the survey settlement record of rights. 3. However, a separate proceeding under Sec.5 (i) (iii) of the act was initiated as against the petitioners. In the said proceeding, according to the petitioners, no evidence was adduced by the State to rebut the presumption of correctness in the entries in survey settlement records of right as contemplated under Sec.103-B of the Bihar Tenancy Act. The sub-Divisional Officer acting as Collector under the said Act by reason of an order dated 22-7-1985, wrongly stated in the petition 6-10-1983/8-10-1983 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application directed exclusion of the land of the petitioners and to hold inquiry under Sec.5 (i), (iii) of the said Act. 4. The petitioners preferred appeal against the order dated 25-5-1986 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application. 4. The petitioners preferred appeal against the order dated 25-5-1986 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application. The said appeal was dismissed by the Collector, Purnea by an order dated 2-6-1987 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application. A revision-application was filed by the petitioners before the Member, Board of Revenue who in terms of his order dated 26-9-1992 dismissed the said revision-application holding that entries in the survey settlement records of right could be ignored. 5. With regard to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that the entries made in the survey settlement record of right does not amount to a transfer and thus, the provisions under Sec.5 (1) (iii) of the said Act is not attracted, the learned Member, Board of Revenue held that in view of the word otherwise occurring in the said provision, any transfer of possession would also come within the purview of the said provision. 6. The learned Member, Board of Revenue further relied upon the verification report. 7. Mr. Kumar Uday Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners has raised a short contention in support of these applications. Learned counsel firstly submitted that in view of the order dated 22-7-1985 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, the Sub-Divisional officer should not have passed the order dated 25-5-1986, which was contrary to and inconsistent with the earlier order. Learned counsel further submitted that in terms of Sec.103-B of the Bihar Tenancy Act, a presumption of correctness arises and thus, it is for the party, who questions the said entry, to adduce sufficient and cogent evidence for the purpose of rebuttal thereof. It was further submitted that the learned Member, Board of Revenue was wholly incorrect insofar as he held that the entry made in the record of rights would not amount to a transfer within the meaning of Sec.5 (1) (iii) of the said Act. Learned counsel further submitted that the verification report should not have been relied upon by the learned Member, Board of Revenue as the said report is not a statutory one. 8. Mr. Raghib Ahsan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state, however, submitted that the transaction in question being sham in nature and having been so found by the authorities under the said Act, this court should not exercise its jurisdiction in favour of petitioners. 9. 8. Mr. Raghib Ahsan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state, however, submitted that the transaction in question being sham in nature and having been so found by the authorities under the said Act, this court should not exercise its jurisdiction in favour of petitioners. 9. In a given case, it may be possible for the Collector under the said Act to adjudicate upon the rival claim of title in order to come to a prima facie finding (which would always be subject to ultimate decision in a suit) that despite an entry made in the survey settlement records of right, the landholder, in fact, had all along been in possession of the lands in question and holds a title in relation thereto. 10. In these cases, however, no such question had been raised nor the State has adduced any evidence for the purpose of showing that the entries made in the revisional survey settlement records, of right are incorrect. Sub-section (3) of Sec.103-B of the Bihar Tenancy Act raises a strong presumption in favour of the entry made in the survey settlement records of right and provide that the same shall be presumed to be correct unless it is proved by evidence to be incorrect. 11. Such a statutory presumption can only be rebutted by adducing cogent evidence. Sec.5 (1) (iii) of the Act contemplates a transfer which ex facie means a transfer of interest. Such transfer of interest normally would be governed by the Transfer of Property Act. 12. The word "otherwise occurring in clause (iii) of Sec.5 (1)of the Act appears after the words whether by a registered instrument or, the order otherwise, therefore, has to be read in the context of a transfer of land and not transfer of possession simpliciter. It also does not contemplate possession obtained by any person either forcibly or otherwise. The word otherwise occurring after whether by a registered instrument or would mean that a transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by any other instrument whether in writing or not, if the same is permissible in law. A transfer by reason of an unregistered instrument or even an oral transfer is permissible in law as is evident from Sec.54 as also Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act ; of course subject to the fulfilment of condition-precedents therefor. A transfer by reason of an unregistered instrument or even an oral transfer is permissible in law as is evident from Sec.54 as also Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act ; of course subject to the fulfilment of condition-precedents therefor. The word otherwise, therefore must be read ejusdem genersis. By way of illustration, it may be stated that in a case where the consideration amount is less than Rs.100/-, a transfer need not be effected by reason of a registered instrument Similarly in case of settlement of agricultural land, the transfer is not necessary to be effected by way of registered instrument but such settlement can be made orally coupled with the delivery of possession and acceptance of rent. Even in a given case, a settlement can be presumed, if the landlord recognise a person as a tenant, although initially the said tenant came in possession illegally, by accepting rent from him. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Mst. Ugni and another V/s. Chowa Mahto and Ors. , reported in 1968 PLJR 3. 13. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the learned Member, board of Revenue was not correct in coming to the conclusion that transfer of possession simpliciter or a possession which has been taken forcibly would come within the purview of Sec.5 (1) (iii) of the Act, 14. It is true that the entry made in the record of rights merely gives rise to a presumption that a person in whose name such an entry has been made, was in possession of the properties in question on the day on which the records of right was finally prepared and published. But it is also well known in view of Sec.110 of the Evidence Act that possession follows title. The possession and title of the petitioners and/or their predecessors in interest had not been questioned in these cases by the landlord. In such a situation, it was not for the State to contend that the petitioners got their names entered into by adopting fraudulent method. Even for coming to such a conclusion it was obligatory on the part of the authorities of the State of Bihar to adduce sufficient and cogent evidence to enable the Collector to hold that the statutory presumption raised in favour of the petitioners stood rebutted. 15. Even for coming to such a conclusion it was obligatory on the part of the authorities of the State of Bihar to adduce sufficient and cogent evidence to enable the Collector to hold that the statutory presumption raised in favour of the petitioners stood rebutted. 15. In any event, even if it is held that by reason of an entry in the records of right, a transfer has been effected in favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, even the same admittedly having been done prior to 22-10-1959, the provisions of the said Act will have no application in relation thereto. Reference in this connection may be made to Mahabir Prasad and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors, (1976 PL JR 134), Satya Nr. Agrawal and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. (1971 BBCJ 391), Chandrajot Kuer and Ors. V/s. State of bihar and Ors. (1983 BB CJ 197 ). 16. In our opinion, the Member, Board of Revenue has also committed an error in relying upon the verification report. The verification report being not a statutory report the same cannot be relied upon unless the parties are given opportunity to adduce their respective evidences. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Shiv Narain khawaray and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. ( 1977 BBCJ 452 ). 17. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 18. These applications are, therefore, allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to exclude the lands claimed by the petitioners in view of the order dated 22-7-1985 as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application and if in the meanwhile a notification under Sec.15 (1) of the said act is issued, a denotification to the aforementioned effect may also be published. 19. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Application Allowed.