IMPORTANT POINT
Provision of section 16(3) being benevolent court should not take a pedantic view in the matter.

JUDGMENT :

R. Banumathi, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissing Writ Petitions being C.W.J.C. Nos.10339, 10355 and 10356 of 1999 on the ground that there has been no sufficient compliance of the requirement of Rule 19 of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules 1963 and Form L.C. 13 of the Rules and declining to interfere with the order passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue dated 31.08.1999 and thereby negativing the appellant’s claim of right of pre-emption.

3. Lands involved in all the three cases belonged to one Ram Kailash Mishra, who died leaving behind his three sons, namely, Ramadhar Mishra (Vendor), Kedar Mishra (appellant) and Ayodhya. The genealogical table of Ram Kailash Mishra is as under:-      

4. Ramadhar Mishra was the vendor and Kedar Mishra the appellant/pre-emptor claimed right of pre-emption both as adjoining land owner as well as co-sharer of the land sold. On 06.02.1988, three sale deeds were executed by late Ramadhar Mishra out of which sale deed with respect to 40 decimal of land out of Chak Plot No.105 having a total area of 1.20 acres was executed in favour of Kamala Devi wife of Rang Bahadur Singh and Janak Dulari Devi wife of Bir Bahadur Singh. With respect to 1/3rd share out of Chak Plot No.128, 94 decimal of land out of total area of 2.82 acres sold by late Ramadhar Mishra in favour of Bir Bahadur Singh and Rang Bahadur Singh by two different sale deeds respectively 47 decimal each. Claiming right of pre-emption and impugning the above three sale deeds, appellant filed three pre-emption cases in Pre-emption Case Nos. 14 of 1992, 12 of 1992 and 13 of 1992 respectively. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR) by common order dated 10.07.1995 allowed all the three pre-emption cases observing that the pre-emptor/appellant is an adjoining raiyat and also a co-sharer of the disputed land. The said order of DCLR dated 10.07.1995 was challenged in pre-emption Appeal Nos. 8 of 1995, 9 of 1995 and 10 of 1995. The aforesaid three appeals were allowed by the Additional Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram by a common order dated 16.04.1996 setting aside the order of DCLR. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.04.1996 passed by the Additional Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram, the appellant filed revision in Revision Case Nos.174, 175 and 176 of 1996 before the Board of Revenue and all the three revision cases were allowed by a common order dated 19.03.1997 setting aside the order of the appellate authority. The abovesaid common order of the Board of Revenue was challenged by the vendees before the High Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 8217 of 1997, 8237 of 1997 and 7039 of 1997. All the three writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 24.09.1998 and the matter was remitted back to the Board of Revenue for deciding the matter afresh. While so remitting the matter, the High Court by its order dated 24.09.1998 directed that the revisional authority shall determine the issue as to whether appellant/pre-emptor had deposited the consideration money along with ten percent amount in favour of the Collector in accordance with law or not.

5. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, Revenue Case Nos.174, 175 and 176 of 1996 were taken up and heard afresh by the Board of Revenue, Bihar. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue vide order dated 31.08.1999 dismissed the revision petitions filed by the appellant holding that the requisite money was not deposited in favour of the Collector in