Judgment N. Pandey, J. 1. Both the writ applications although filed by different petitioners but are for quashing a common order of the Additional Member, board of Revenue, dated 31-8-1994, in case No.394 of 1993, whereby and whereunder he declared second transaction with respect to the land in dispute as sham and fraudulent. 2. Petitioner Anima Devi is the first purchaser of the land in dispute through a registered sale deed executed by Most. Shanti Kuer, wife of Ram pukar Singh, respondent No.7 petitioner Ram Pravesh Singh is the second purchaser of the land in dispute through a registered sale deed executed on 9-5-1988 and registered on 27.6.1988 by Anima Devi (first purchaser ). 3. It appears, a petition claiming pre-emption with respect to the land in dispute was filed on 18-7-1988 by respondent Lallan Singh under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hajipur against anima Devi, first purchaser. Admittedly, no pre-emption application was filed against the second purchaser namely, ram Pravesh Singh but while pendency of the above mentioned case on 20-2-1989, an application was filed by the pre-emptors before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms to implead Ram pravesh Singh, the second purchaser as one of the parties to the proceeding. The learned D. C. L. R. , after having heard the parties, by his order contained in annexure 4, rejected the application on the ground that no application for pre-emption within the stipulated time was filed against the second purchaser. Therefore, simply because filing of an application in the previous proceeding, the validity of the second sale deed could not be questioned. Accordingly he While rejecting the application dated 2-3-1989, also dismissed the pre-emption application. 4. The pre-emptors took ap the matter before the Additional Collector, appellate authority but the same was also dismissed on 31-3-1993 affirming the order of the Deputy Collector, land Reforms. It was also held that the execution of the document with regard to the second transaction had already taken place prior to the filing of the pre-emption application. Therefore, the genuineness of the transaction which was finally registered on 27-8-1988 could not be questioned by mere filing of an application in the previous proceeding. It was also held that the execution of the document with regard to the second transaction had already taken place prior to the filing of the pre-emption application. Therefore, the genuineness of the transaction which was finally registered on 27-8-1988 could not be questioned by mere filing of an application in the previous proceeding. Ultimately, the respondent nos.5 and 6 filed a revision-application before the Member, Board of Revenue, which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the Additional Member, board of Revenue declaring the second sale deed in favour of Ram Pravesh singh, as sham as also allowed the claim of pre-emption of the concerned respondents. 5. Learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners contended that the order of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, is quite illegal and arbitrary. He failed to appreciate that the execution of the second sale deed had already taken place even prior to the filing of the pre-emption application against the first sale-deed. In such a situation, therefore, the moment the document is finally registered, the second transferee gets a good title to the property and there cannot be any question of his right being defeated by subsequent application filed by the preemptor as he could not have presumed knowledge of the application which might he filed in future. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the application filed by them could not have been rejected by the Deputy Collector, Land reforms, as barred by limitation because ultimately after getting knowledge about the second transaction, the application in question was filed. It was next contended since the pre-emption application was already filed against the first purchaser and the final registration, with respect to the second sale deed had taken place during the pendency of the said case, it was not necessary for the pre-emptor to file another application under Sec.16 (3) of the Act. 7. I after having heard the parties, also perused the order passed by the respondent authorities. A bare reference to the order of the Additional member, Board of Revenue would reveal that in fact he has completely failed to appreciate the legal position. Admittedly, the execution with regard to the second sale-deed had taken place before the filing of the petition under section 16 (3) of the Act. A bare reference to the order of the Additional member, Board of Revenue would reveal that in fact he has completely failed to appreciate the legal position. Admittedly, the execution with regard to the second sale-deed had taken place before the filing of the petition under section 16 (3) of the Act. In such a situation, it cannot be denied that the moment, the document was finally registered, transferee got his title to the property. Therefore, simply by filing of an application in the previous proceeding his right could not have been defeated by mere finding of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue in the previous proceeding. 8. Matter could have been different if the execution and registration of the second sale-deed had taken place after the riling of the pre-emption application. Certainly, in such a case, the second transfer would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. But the position would be different where a document was executed prior to the filing of the application under Section 16 (3) of the Act but registered after its filing. Similar view was taken by a bench of this Court in the case of Ramchandra Yadav V/s. Anutha Yadav and others, 1971 BLJR 994. 9. Therefore, having regard to the facts noticed above, there cannot be any dispute the moment second sale-deed was finally registered, in all respects, title had passed to the second sale deed was finally registered, in all respects, title had passed to the second transferee. Therefore, the allegation of sham and farzi nature of the transaction could only be raised by filing a preemption application within the period prescribed under the Act. If, that is not done, undisputedly, the pre-emptor is debarred from challenging the second sale deed as sham and farzi. 10. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, I have no option but to allow this writ-application and quash the order of the Additional Member, board of revenue dated 31-8-1994. But in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.