KEDAR MISHRA versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 12-04-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 3 S.C.R. l 
KEDAR MISHRA 
v. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3 778-80of2016) 
APRIL 12, 2016 
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI, R. BANUMATHI AND 
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] '""<!, 
Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition 
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 
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) 
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 
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). 
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/ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F . 
G 
H 
2 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 3 S.C.R. 
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, 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
that the amount has not been deposited under the head '2029 
KEDAR MISHRA v. THE STATE OF BIHAR 
Land Revenue' but

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.