JUDGEMENT V. N. Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.12.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in Ceiling Revision Case No.197 of 1989, Annexure-2, whereunder order dated 7.1.1989, Annexure-5 passed by the Collector, purnia affirming the order dated 11.8.1984 and 5.11.1986 passed by the Additional Collector, Purnia in Ceiling Case No.171 of 1975-76, Annexure-4 annulling the registered sale deed dated 13.12.1965 referred to in the order of the Board of Revenue and the authorities below has been set aside holding that the sale deed dated 13.12.1965 was executed by the land holder bonafide for valuable consideration and not for defeating the provisions contained in Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as the purchaser was put in possession of the subject matter of the sale deed and was mutated under order dated 13.3.1968/25.3.1968 passed in Mutation Case No.35/4 of 1967-68. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners questioned the order of the Board of Revenue upholding the sale deed on the ground that petitioners being the share cropper of the lands in question were not issued notice and their rights under Section-21 of the Act was not considered before upholding the validity of the sale deed. Perusal of the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 27.12.1995, Annexure-2 indicates that the Board of Revenue has relied upon the mutation order passed in favour of the purchaser and the continuity of the rent receipts to conclude that the purchaser of the lands in question after mutation remained in continuous possession and the sale deed executed in his favour is not a sham document. The Board of Revenue having recorded such finding in its order, this Court does not feel confident to question the correctness of those findings only on the ground that the share cropper was not issued notice. While conducting enquiry under Section-5 (1) (iii) of the Act the land holder and the purchaser is required to be heard. The share cropper has his own remedy under the provisions of Section-48e of the B. T. Act. In that view of the matter, I do not see any merit in the writ application, which is dismissed.