Holding

An error in the treasury challan head does not defeat compliance with Rule 19 and Form L.C.13, as the essential requirement is the deposit of the requisite amount to the treasury, and such technical defect cannot be a ground to dismiss a pre‑emption application.

Summary

Kedar Mishra, a co‑sharer and raiyat, claimed right of pre‑emption under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act for three parcels sold by his brother. He deposited the required ten percent of the purchase price, but the treasury challan recorded the deposit under the head ‘0029 L.R.’ instead of the prescribed ‘2029 Land Revenue’. The Board of Revenue and the High Court dismissed his pre‑emption applications on the ground of non‑compliance with Rule 19 and Form L.C.13 of the 1963 Rules. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the essential requirement was the deposit of the amount to the treasury, and a clerical error in the head cannot defeat compliance or be a ground to dismiss the application at the threshold. The Court emphasized the benevolent purpose of the Act and the inability of a raiyat to be expected to know the correct head. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the matter remitted to the Board of Revenue for fresh consideration on merits.

Issues considered

The deposit of the required amount under an incorrect treasury head satisfies the compliance requirements of Rule 19 and Form L.C.13.
Whether a technical defect in the treasury challan can be a ground to dismiss a pre‑emption application at the threshold.
Whether the requirements of Rule 19/Form L.C.13 are directory or mandatory for the exercise of the pre‑emption right under Section 16(3).

Legislation cited

Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961s. 16(3)
Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules, 1963s. Rule 19
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order XXI, Rule 34

Subjects

pre‑emptionBihar Land Reforms ActRule 19Form L.C.13technical defectprocedural complianceland ceilingco‑sharerraiyattreasury challan

Judgment

[2016] 3 S.C.R. l

KEDAR MISHRA A

v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 3 778-80of2016)
B
APRIL 12, 2016

[T.S. THAKUR, CJI, R. BANUMATHI AND
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] '""<!,
Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition
c
of Surplus Land) Rules, 1963: r.19 - Right of pre-emption - Pre-
emption application filed by appellant-co-sharer dismissed for non-
compliance of rule 19 and Form L.C.13 since deposit of amount
for filing of pre-emption cases was not made under the prescribed
head - Held: Though amount was deposited under wrong head, the
fact remains that the amount was deposited to the credit of the D
treasury - A party cannot be denied right of adjudicatiOn of the
matter on merits merely because of some inadvertent mistake -
Mentioning a wrong head cannot be ground to dismiss the pre-
emption application of the appellant at threshold - Bihar Land
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land)
E
Act, 1961 - s.16(3) - Land laws.
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to Board of
Revenue, the Court
HELD: 1.In terms of Section 16(3)(i) of the Bihar Land
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus F .
Land) Act, 1961, no pre-emption application shall be entertained
by the Collector unless the purchase money together with a sum
equal to ten percent thereof is deposited by the person claiming
right of pre-emption in the prescribed manner within the said
period. Rule 19 deals with the application by a co-sharer or a
raiyat of adjoining land for transfer of land under Section 16(3). G
Form L.C. 13 is a form of application by a co-sharer or a raiyat of
adjoining land for transfer ofland to him under Section 16(3)(i) of
the Act. As per Form L.C. 13 para (2), the applicant claiming
right of pre-emption has to enclose copy of District/sub-treasury/
H
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 3 S.C.R.

A treasury challan showing that he has deposited the amount equal
to ten percent thereof to the credit of the Collector of the area
concerned under the Act. In compliance of Section 16(3)(i) and
Rule 19, for all the three pre-emption cases, the appellant has
deposited ten percent of purchase money. Copy of the challan
produced on record shows that details like name, designation,
B
address of the person who deposited the money as well as the
reason for such deposit are required to be filled in by the
concerned person; while other details are to be filled in by the
Treasury office. In the column to be filled. in by 'Account Officer
wlto would collect tlte amount', it was stated as '0029 L.R.' whereas
c the prescribed head for the said deposits is stated to be '2029
Land Revenue'. In the challan, above the column earmarked for
the 'Account Officer wlto would collect tlte amou11t' in the precedin11:
row, it is stipulated that it is 'to be filled up by tlte officer o,r
treasury'. The High Court as well as the Board of Revenue held
that money has been deposited under the head '0029 L.R.' in the
D
name of District Collector and since the amount was not deposited
under appropriate head, there was no sufficient compliance of
Rule 19 Form L.C. 13. The High Court observed that since the
money has, been deposited in the name of the District Collector,
in case, the pre-emption applications are allowed, then the
E transferee will have to face a lot of legal hassle in getting back
the entire money deposited by the pre-emptor and that it cannot
be the legislative intent. The High Court was of the view that
there has been no sufficient compliance of the requirement of
Rule 19 and Form L.C. 13 of the rules and the High Court erred
in ignoring the details of various columns in the challan. [Paras 9
F to 12] (6-B; 7-C-D; 8-D-E, G-H; 9-A-C]
2. There is no denying the fact that the appellant has
deposited ten percent of the purchase money as required under
Section 16(3)(i) of the Act. As against the column 'Account Officer
wlto wo1dd collect tlte amo1111t', mentioning a wrong head cannot
G be a ground to dismiss the pre-emption applications of the
appellant at the threshold. The appellant being a raiyat cannot
be expected to know the correct head under which the amount is
to be deposited and a pedantic approach should not be adopted.
To 11on-suit the appellant on the ground of a technical objection
H that the amount has not been deposited under the head '2029
KEDAR MISHRA v. THE STATE OF BIHAR 3

Land Revenue' but deposited under the head '0029 L.R. ', would A
defeat the benevolent object of Section 16(3) of the Act. Though
the amount was deposited under a wrong head, the fact remains
that the amount has been deposited to the credit of the treasury.
The appellant ought to have been given an opportunity to pursue
his case of right to pre-emption, having regard to the fact that
B
being a raiyat, his legal literacy rate may be low. A party cannot
be denied right of adjudication of the matter on merits merely
because of some inadvertent mistake. The High Court was not
justified in viewing the treasury challan with a pedantic approach
and was also not right in affirming the order passed by the Bcfard
of Revenue. [Para 13) [9-D-G] c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3778-
3780 of2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.20 I 0 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in Writ Petitions C.W.J.C. No. 10339of1999,
C.W.J.C. No. 10355of1999 and C.W.J.C. No. I 0356of1999. D

Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Adv. for the Appellant.
Raj iv Shankar Dvivedi, Shivam Singh, Gopal Singh, AdvitiyaAwasthi,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E
R. BANUMATHI, J. I. 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. I 0339, I 0355 and I 0356of1999 on
F
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 withthe 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. G
3. Lands involved in all the three cases belonged to one Ram Kai lash
Mishra, who died leaving behind his three sons, namely, Ramadhar Mishra
(Vendor), Kedar Mishra (appellant) and Ayodhya. The genealogical
table of Ram Kai lash Mishra is as under:-
H
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C .R.

A Ram Kailash Mishra

Ramadhar Mishra Kedar Mishra Ayodhya
Mishra
(Vendor) (Appellant)
B

11
Kalawati Devi Dhararnwati Devi Sunita Devi Radhika De\ti Kaushal Kishore Mishra BrijKrishore
"' Bandana Mishra

c R-12 R-13 R-14 R-15 (R-16) (R·l7)

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
D with respect to 40 decimal of land out of Chak Plot No. I 05 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 I/3rd share out ofChak Plot No.128, 94 decimal of land
out of total area of2.82 acres sold by late Ramadhar Mishra in favour of
E
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 I0.07.1995 allowed all the three pre-emption cases observing
F that the pre-emptor/appellant is an adjoining raiyat and also a co-sharer
of the disputed land. The said order of DCLR dated I0.07.1995 was
challenged in pre-emption Appeal Nos. 8 of 1995, 9 of 1995 and I 0 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 DC LR. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.04.1996
G
passed by the Additional Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram, the appellant
filed revision in Revision Case Nos.174, 175 and 176of1996 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 ofthe Board of Revenue was
H challenged by_the vendees before the High Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 8217
KEDAR MISHRA v. THE STATE OF BIHAR 5
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]

of 1997, 8237of1997 and 7039of1997. All the three writ petitions were A
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 detennine the issue as to whether
appellant/pre-emptor had deposited the consideration money along with
B
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 c
appellant holding that the requisite money was not deposited in favour of
the Collector in compliance with Rule 19 Form L.C.13 and consequently,
pre-emption applications of the appellant stood dismissed. Being
aggrieved, the appellant filed writ petitions before the High Court in
C.W.J.C. Nos.10339, 10355 and 10356 ofl999. All thethree writ petitions D
came to be dismissed by the impugned order holding that the deposit for
filing of pre-emption cases was made in favour of the District Collector
under the head '0029 L.R. ' and the prescribed head is '2029 Land
Revenue' and there was no sufficient compliance of Rule 19 and Form
L.C. 13 of the rules. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred these
appeals. E

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable
length. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the requisite
amount of money for filing the pre-emption cases was deposited under
head '0029 L.R.' through treasury and there has been sufficient
compliance of Rule 19 Form L.C. 13 and hence the findings of the High F
Court that there was no sufficient compliance of Rule 19 and Form L.C.
13 is not sustainable. It was submitted that the requirements of Rule 19
and Form L.C.13 of the rules are directory in nature and even assuming
that ifthere was no compliance of the said rules, appellant's substantive
right of pre-emption cannot be defeated. G
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
the treasury challan under head '0029 L.R. 'could not be withdrawn by
the Collector under the Act in the pre-emption proceedings to make it
over to the concerned person and the error in the challan goes at the
root of the matter and the Board of Revenue and the High Court rightly
H
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.

A dismissed the pre-emption cases of the appellant.
8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, perused the
impugned order as well as the order of the Board of Revenue dated
31.08.1999 and other material on record.
9. It is relevant to quote Section 16(3) of Bihar Land Reforms
B (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus land) Act, 1961
(Bihar Act No.12 of 1962) which reads as under:-
Section 16: Restriction on future acquisition by transfer
etc:-

c xxxxxxxxx
xxx xxxxxx
"(3 )( i) When any transfer ofland is made after the commencement
of this Act to any person other than a co-sharer or a raiyat of
adjoining land, any co-sharerofthe transferor or any raiyat holding
D land adjoining the land transfered, shall be entitled, within three
months of the date of registration of the document of transfer, to
make an application before the Collector in the prescribed manner
for the transfer of the land to him on the terms and conditions
contained in the said deed:
E Provided that no such application shall be entertained by the
Collector unless the purchase money together with a sum equal
to ten percent thereof is deposited in the prescribed manner within
t~e said period.

(ii) On such deposit being made the co-sharer or the raiyat shall
F be entitled to be put in possession of the land irrespective of the
fact that the application under clause (i) is pending for decision:
Provided that where the application is rejected, the co-sharer or
the raiyat, as the case may be, shall be evicted, from the land and
possession thereof shall be restored to the transferee and the
G transferee shall be entitled to be paid a sum equal to ten percent
of the purchase money out of the deposit made under clause(i).
(iii) lfthe application is allowed, the Collector shall by an order
direct the transferee to convey the land in favour of the applicant
by executing and registering a document of transfer with in a period
H to be specified in the order and, ifhe neglects or refuses to comply
KEDAR MISHRA v. THE STATE OF BlHAR 7
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]

with the direction, the procedure prescribed in Order XXI, Rule A
34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), shall be, so
far as may be followed.
The revision against the order passed by the Collector or Additional
Collector under Section 16(3) of the Act will be before the
Divisional Commissioner who after hearing the parties shall pass B
orders in the case filed before him. (Inserted by Act 10 of2006)"
The object of Section 16(3) of the Act is to secure consolidation by
giving the right ofre-conveyance to a co-sharer or a raiyat of an adjoining
area so that the land in question can be used in the most advantageous
manner and also to prevent fragmentation of the land. Jn terms of Section c
l 6(3)(i), no pre-emption application shall be entertained by the Collector
unless the purchase money together with a sum equal to ten percent
thereof is deposited by the person claiming right of pre-emption in the
prescribed manner within the said period.
10. Rule 19 deals with the application by a co-sharer or a raiyat of D
adjoining land for transferofland under Section 16(3). Rule 19 reads as
under:-
"19. Application by co-sharer or a raiyat of adjoining land
for transfer of land under Section 16(3).-( I) Application by a
co-sharer or raiyat of adjoining land for transfer of land under E
Section 16(3) shall be in Form L.C.13 and the purchase money
together with a sum equal to ten percent thereof shall be deposited
in the Treasury/Sub-treasury of the district within which the land
transferred is situated.
(2) A copy ofChallan, showing deposit of the amount under sub-
F
rule (I) together with a copy of the registered deed, shall be filed
along with the application in which also a statement to this effect
shall be made.
(3) A copy of the said application shall also be sent simultaneously
by the applicant to the transferor and the transferee by registered
G
post with acknowledgment due. '
(4) The Collector shall issue a notice to the transferor, the
transferee and the applicant to appear before him on a date to be
specified in the notice and after giving the parties concerned a
reasonable opportunity of showing cause, ifany, and of being heard,
H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.

A shall by an order in writing, either allow the application in
accordance with clause (iii) of sub-section (3) of Section I 6, or
reject it.
(5) If the application is allowed under item (iii) of sub-section (3)
of Section 16 and the transferee is directed by the Collector by
B any order to convey the land in favour of the applicant by executing
and registering a document of transfer, the applicant shall be
required to pay the registration fee.
(6) Where the application is allowed and the transferee conveys
the land in favour of the applicant under Section 16(3)(iii), the
c transferee shall be allowed to withdraw the money deposited by
the applicant."
1I. Form L.C. 13 is a form of application by a co-sharer or a raiyat
of adjoining land for transfer ofland to him under Section l 6(3)(i) of the
Act (I 2 of I 962). As per Form L.C. 13 para (2), the applicant claiming
D right of pre-emption has to enclose copy of District/sub-treasury/treasury
challan showing that he has deposited the amount equal to ten percent
thereof to the credit of the Collector of the area concerned under the
Act.
12. In compliance of Section 16(3)(i) and Rule 19, for all the three
E pre-emption cases, the appellant has deposited ten percent of purchase
mon~y as under:-

Pre-Emption Treasury Challan Amount deposited
Case No.

12/91-92 No. 26 dated 8.7.91 Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 1,000/-
F 13/91-92 No. 25 dated 8.7.91 Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 1,000/-
14/91-92 No. 27 dated 8.7.91 Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 1,000/-
14/91-92 No. 27 dated 8.7.91 Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 1,000/-

Admittedly, as noted above, the appellant has deposited ten percent
of the purchase money (Annexure P2-series). Copy of the challan
G produced on record shows that details like name, designation, address of
the person who deposited the money as well as the reason for such
deposit are required to be filled in by the concerned person; while other
details are to be filled in by the Treasury office. In the column to be
filled in by 'Accoullf Qfficer who would collect the a111ou11t ', it was
H stated as '0029 LR.' whereas the prescribed head for the said deposits
KEDAR MISHRA v. THE STATE OF BIHAR 9
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]

is st~ted to be '2029,Land R~venue' ~ l~ the~ch~llan, above the column
•• ' . ' . ·' ··.>' •.
A
earmarked for the 'Account Officer who would collect the amount' in
the preceding row, it is sti'ptilated thafit is 'to be filled up by the officer
or treasury'. The High Court as well as the Board of Revenue held
that money has been deposited under the head '0029 L.R. 'in the name
of District Collector and since the amount was not deposited under
B
. appropriate head, there was no sufficient compliance of Rule 19 Form
L.C. l 3. The High Court observed that since the money has been deposited
ip the n.ame. of the District CoJlector, in case, the pre-emption applications
are allowed, tl,Jen the transferee will have to.face a lot oflegal hassle in
getting back the entire.money deposited by the pre-emptor and that it
cannot be the legislative intent. The High Court was of the view that c
there has 'been ~o suffic.ient compliance of the requirement of Rule 19
and Form L.C. 13 of the rules and in our view, the High Court erred in
ignoring the details of various columns in the challan.
13. In our view, the High Court was not right in holding that there
was no sufficient compliance of the requirement of Rule 19 and Form D
L.C. 13. There is no denying the fact that the appellant has deposited
ten percent of the purchase money as required under Section 16(3)(i) of
the Act. As against the column 'Account Officer.who would collect
the amount'' mentioning a wro;1g head cannot be' a ground to dismiss
the pre-emption applications ofthe appellant a:t the threshold .. The appel !ant
being a raiyar cannot be expected fo know the correct head under which
E
the amount is to be deposited and a pedantic approach should not be
adopted. To non-suit the appellant on the ground of a technical objection
that the amount has not been deposited under the head. '2029 Land
Revenue' butdeposi'ted under the head '0029 LR. ', would defeat the
benevolent object of Section 16(3) of the Act.. Th1:mgh the amount was F
deposited under a wrong head, the fact remains that the amount has
··been deposited'ti:i the.credit of the treasury. The appellant ought to have
· been given an cipportunit)' t6 pursue his case of right to pre-emption,
having regard to the fact that being a raiyar, his legal literacy rate may
be low. A· party canno't be denied right of adjudication of the matter on
. merits merely·because of some inadvertent mistake. In our view, the G
High .Court was.not justified in viewing the treasury challan with a pedantic
approach and was also not right in affirming the order passed by the
Board of Revenue.
i 4. In the result, tlie inipugned order ofth~ High Court is set aside
H
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 3 S.C.R.

A and the matter is remitted back to the Board of Revenue, Bihar to
reconsider the Revision Case Nos.174, 175 and 176 of 1996 afresh on
merits after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. We make it clear that we have
not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The parties to
bear their respec_tive costs.
B
Devika Gujral Appeals allowed.