Judgment 1. Upon the seller selling the subject land by three registered instruments registered on the same date to a person, who was neither a boundary raiyat, nor a co-sharer of the seller, a boundary raiyat of the seller, as entitled to, filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act exercising his right of pre-emption granted thereby. 2. The application, being one, in respect of three sale deeds, the purchaser contended that such an application is not maintainable. In other words, it was contended that a composite application pertaining to three distinct transactions is not maintainable. The purchaser further contended that a part of the land has been sold by him to another person. He further contended that while selling a part of the land, the purchaser has sold under the same instrument a part of the land purchased by him from yet another person. On coming to know that the purchaser has purported to sell a part of the land, the pre-emptor applied for addition of the person to whom a part of the land had been sold by the purchaser. Without bringing the buyer of the purchaser on the records of the case, the first authority exercising power on the said application of the pre-emptor dismissed the same. On an appeal filed by the pre-emptor, the same succeeded, when the appellate authority while quashing the order of the first authority directed the buyer of the purchaser to be added as a party to the proceeding and to decide the matter de novo. The revision having failed before the revisional authority, the purchaser then approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which having been allowed by the judgment and order under appeal, the pre-emptor is before us in this appeal. The writ petition was allowed only on the ground that while selling a part of the land, being the subject matter of pre-emption, the purchaser had also sold a part of the land purchased by him from yet another person. We feel that in law that has no legal effect on the preemption application. In the event a preemption application succeeds, pre-emptor is entitled to have a sale deed executed in his favour in respect of the land upon which he has a right of pre-emption. We feel that in law that has no legal effect on the preemption application. In the event a preemption application succeeds, pre-emptor is entitled to have a sale deed executed in his favour in respect of the land upon which he has a right of pre-emption. If, ultimately the pre-emptor succeeds, the buyer of the purchaser would be required to transfer her right in the land in respect whereof the pre-emption application has been made and not the land which she has purchased alongwith the land, being the subject matter of the pre-emption application. 3. We think that the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority rightly directed the buyer of the purchaser to be made a party to the pre-emption proceeding and to decide the application de novo on merits, more so when it appears from the records of the case that before the buyer became the owner of the land in question by obtaining registration of the conveyances in relation thereto, the buyer of the purchaser got a part of the land in question from the buyer. That apart, it has come on record that the buyer of the purchaser while got a part of the land, being the subject matter of the pre-emption application, she also got a part of the land which was purchased by the purchaser from the son of the buyer of the purchaser about three days back. These matters require a proper investigation and application of mind and should never have had been decided on a technical ground. 4. The appeal, accordingly, stands allowed. The order under appeal is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.