IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10599 of 2007 1. Raj Kishore Prasad Singh 2. Kaushal Kishore Singh 3. Kamal Kishore Singh, all sons of late Ramakant Singh, permanent resident of Village- Tekanpura Bhusari, Police Station- Nowkothi, District-Begusarai ---- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Begusarai 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Manjhaul, District- Begusarai. ------------ ----- Respondent Ist Set. 5. Uma Mahto 6. Ramnandan Mahto 7. Shivnandan Mahto 8. Ram Ratan Mahto 9. Akhildev Mahto 10. Lalan Mahto 11. Phuleshari Devi 12. Mania Devi, all sons and daughters of Late Bhatu Mahto, resident of Village- Tekanpura Bhusari, P.S. Nowkhoti, District- Begusarai 13. Gopal Mahto, son of Shri Uma Mahto, resident of Village Tekanpura Bhusari, P.S Nowkothi, District- Besugarai. ----------- 2. 17.2.2009 Heard Mr. Choudhary Shyam Nandan for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No.4(Ceiling). This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.11.2006, passed by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, in Case No. 56 of 2002 (Bhattu Mahto and others Vrs. Raj Kishore Singh), whereby he has allowed the revision application preferred by Bhattu Mahto (deceased), and has rejected the pre-emption application preferred by the petitioners herein. It arises out of proceedings under section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the Act.). We do not feel the necessity of issuing notices to respondent nos. 5 to 13 in view of the nature of the order we are going to pass. We 2 would like to record the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that Bhattu Mahto has died during pendency of the proceeding before the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, and was, inter alia, substituted by her heirs including his widow, Most. Tano Devi. She has also died and, therefore, she has not been impleaded as a party respondent. The remaining heirs of Bhattu Mahto are on record. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. It is with respect to the following lands: ekStk rkSth ua0 [kkrk ua0 [ksljk ua0 jdck pkSgn~nh Vsduiqjk 213 24 542 2 ch?kk m0 cukjlh flag 69 548 6 dB~Bk n0 fl;kjke flag 138 549 13 /kqj iw0 x.Md unh 582 5 /kqjdh i0 lq[kks flag 583 Bhattu Mahto since deceased gifted the same by means of a registered deed of gift on 9.9.1994 in favour of respondent no.13 herein. The petitioners herein filed an application under section 16(3) of the Act claiming pre-emption with respect to the lands in question on the ground that he is a co-sharer as well as adjoining raiyat of Balmiki Prasad Singh. The pre-emption application was rejected by order dated 11.8.1995 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Manjhaul, in Case No. 3 of 1994 (Raj Kishore Prasad Singh Vrs. Bhattu Mahto), on the ground that the lands in question has already been gifted in favour of respondent no.13, and, therefore, the pre-emption application is hit by the bar engrafted in explanation to section 16(1) of the Act which is to the effect that transfer within the meaning of section 16 of the Act does not include 3 inheritance, request or gift. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners preferred statutory appeal which has been allowed by the learned Collector of the district Begusarai by his order dated 7.9.2001 (Annexure-2), passed in Ceiling Appeal No. 41 of 1995 (Raj Kishore Prasad Singh Vrs. Bhattu Mahto), set aside the order of the learned first authority on the ground that the aforesaid deed of gift is a sham and antedated document. The application of the petitioners under section 16(3) of the Act thus stood allowed. Aggrieved by this order, Bhattu Mahto and others preferred revision application in terms of section 30(2) of the Act which has been allowed, the order of the learned appellate authority has been set aside, and that of the learned first authority has been restored. He has held that it is a valid and genuine deed of gift and has, therefore, applied the bar contained in explanation to section 16(1) of the Act. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned revisional authority has not properly considered the question of genuineness of the deed of gift. Learned Government Counsel has supported the impugned order. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to me that the learned first authority as well as the learned revisional authority found as an issue of fact that the aforesaid deed of gift is a genuine document. Although nowhere stated in the writ petition, but learned counsel for the petitioners submits at the Bar that the application under section 16(3) of the Act was filed on 15.9.1994. It is evident that the 4 application under section 16(3) was filed after execution of the deed of gift on 9.9.1994, though the same was registered at a later date. Law is well settled that if a deed is registered, then its effect dates back to the date of execution of the sale deed. No material has been brought to my notice to enable me to take a different view on the issue of genuineness of registered deed of gift. In that view of the matter, no ground for interference is made out. The writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )