Judgment 1. Both these writ applications arise out of two separate proceedings started by respondent No. 4 for preemption of certain land u/s. 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, with respect to I.B. 15, K.5 dhurs of land appertaining to plot No. 804, transferred under two sale deeds dated 14-6-1975 by respondents Nos. 5 to 7 in favour of the respective petitioners who are brothers inter se for a sum of Rs. 8000.00 each. On the same day, respondents Nos. 5 to 7 also sold 1 B. 13 K. 3 dhurs of land for a sum of Rs. 9,000.00 appertaining to plot No. 352 in favour of both the brothers, namely, the petitioners of the writ applications jointly. It may be mentioned that in the third sale deed it was stated by the vendors that both the plots, namely, plot Nos. 804 and 352 were subject to encumbrance being in mortgage to one Ram Chandra Mishra for a sum of Rs. 6,500.00. The mortgagee Ram Chandra Mishra is respondent No.8 in these applications, but has not chosen to appear. 2. The pre-emptor made application for pre-empting the lands covered by the two sale deeds with respect to plot No. 804 but not with respect to plot No.352. The preemption was claimed by respondent No. 4 on the ground that he was an adjacent raiyat of plot No. 804. The applications were resisted by the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that the three transactions being part of the same transaction, no preemption could be allowed with respect to plot No. 804 only. The claim of the respondent No. 4 of being adjacent raiyat of plot No. 804 was not disputed. Before the Deputy Collector the transferors, namely, respondents Nos. 5 to 7, however, made a petition praying that the mortgagee Ram Chandra Mishra was entitled to the mortgage money out of the amount deposited by the pre-emptor on the above facts. 3. The prayer for pre-emption was allowed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gopalganj by his order (Annexure-3) who overruled the frivolous defence set up by the petitioners. 5 to 7, however, made a petition praying that the mortgagee Ram Chandra Mishra was entitled to the mortgage money out of the amount deposited by the pre-emptor on the above facts. 3. The prayer for pre-emption was allowed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gopalganj by his order (Annexure-3) who overruled the frivolous defence set up by the petitioners. He however, also overruled their objection regarding the payment of the mortgage money to the mortgagee aforesaid and directed that the petitioners would get the amount deposited by the pre-emptor after deducting the mortgage money, amounting to Rs. 6,500.00. This order has been maintained by the appellate and the revisional authorities, namely the Additional Collector: Gopalganj and the Additional Member of the Board of Revenue by their orders contained in Annexures-2 and 1, respectively. 4. Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing in support of these applications has raised only one point and that is as to whether the revenue authorities could pass an order for deducting the mortgage money from the consideration. According to the learned counsel, as there was no mention of the fact of mortgage in the two sale deeds, namely, the sales with respect to plot No. 804, which alone were the subject-matter of the pre-emption applications, there was no justification for the revenue authorities to pass an order in that regard inasmuch the pre-emptor was obliged to take the transferred land to him on the terms and conditions contained in the sale deed as provided under S.16 (3) and, therefore, according to the learned counsel, the revenue authorities have based the impugned orders on consideration of extraneous matter which was beyond the scope of the investigation by them. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on a Bench decision of this court in Deo Nandan Mishra V/s. State of Bihar ( AIR 1971 Pat 426 ) where no doubt it was observed that the pre-emptor was bound to take the reconveyance on the same terms and conditions, but in my view the observation having been made entirely in a different context, will be of no assistance to the petitioners. In that case the preemptor happened to be the mortgagee of the lands in question and what he did was that he deducted the amount of serpeshgi from the consideration mentioned in the sale deed and made the deposit for preempting the transfer. In that case the preemptor happened to be the mortgagee of the lands in question and what he did was that he deducted the amount of serpeshgi from the consideration mentioned in the sale deed and made the deposit for preempting the transfer. On his behalf it was contended that inasmuch as if the entire consideration would have been deposited he was entitled to be paid back the amount of serpeshgi money, the amount deposited after making deduction should be held to be quite valid and in due compliance of the requirement of law. This argument was repelled by the Bench, and it was in this context that it was observed that the purchase money mentioned in Sec. 16 (3) of the Act means the purchase money as appearing in the sale deed. 5. We have seen that the pre-emptor in this case has not committed that mistake which was committed by the pre-emptor in the reported decision. He has deposited the entire consideration as appearing in the sale deeds. Undisputedly the purchasers have not paid the amount of Rs. 6,500.00 to the vendors which was retained by them in deposit for remitting the encumbrance of the mortgagee. On account of the order of pre-emption if they are allowed to draw the entire amount of consideration, then that will amount to giving them an undue advantage without discharging their obligation of redemption inasmuch as the burden of redemption would shift on the pre-emptor under the law, as notwithstanding the deed of transfer in his favour, the lands will stand subject to the encumbrance created by respondents Nos. 5 to 7 in favour of the mortgagee. The respondents Nos. 5 to 7 having already transferred the equity of redemption also would be deemed in law to have been discharged from their duty to redeem the mortgage. If the argument of Mr. Janardan Singh is accepted, then it would simply amount in law to give them an undue advantage and they will enrich by the sum of Rs. 6,500.00 to which apparently they are not entitled. If the argument of Mr. Janardan Singh is accepted, then it would simply amount in law to give them an undue advantage and they will enrich by the sum of Rs. 6,500.00 to which apparently they are not entitled. Under the law of pre-emption as contained in Sec.16(3) of the Act, the preemptor is entitled to immediate possession of the lands and, therefore, the petitioners having now been deprived of the property may choose not to take any action in the matter of redemption of the encumbrance and would rather feel delighted in seeing the pre-emptor in distress having an advantage of getting 10 per cent solatium as well as the mortgage money. Under Sec. 37 of the Act, the Collector has been generally empowered to decide such disputes where no specific provision has been made. Mr. Singh also contended that the mortgage debt would be deemed to have been fully satisfied and the mortgage to have been fully redeemed on expiry of a period of 7 years from the date the execution of the mortgage bond by virtue of Sec.12 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act. 1974 and, therefore, the mortgagee was not entitled to maintain his possession or claim the mortgage money. It may well be, that the mortgage bond being usufructuary might be deemed to be redeemed by virtue of the aforesaid provision but the fact remains that the legislature intended to give advantage of this automatic redemption of the mortgage debts to the mortgagors. The petitioners in the circumstances mentioned will be simply usurpers of this advantage or benefit flowing to the mortgagors. 6. The next argument worth noticing of Mr. Singh was that even according to the statement made in the third sale deed the mortgage bond was with respect to plot Nos: 804 and 352 and inasmuch as the pre-emption was for only one of the plots, namely, 804, it could not be ascertained as to what amount appertained to this plot and what to plot No. 352. This argument might have some relevancy had the petitioners not taken joint sale deed with respect to plot No. 352. Undisputedly both the purchasers were liable for the mortgage debt and they have jointly received the benefit of keeping the mortgage amount in deposit with them when they took the third sale deed. This argument might have some relevancy had the petitioners not taken joint sale deed with respect to plot No. 352. Undisputedly both the purchasers were liable for the mortgage debt and they have jointly received the benefit of keeping the mortgage amount in deposit with them when they took the third sale deed. The Bihar Money Lenders Act was published in the Bihar Gazette on 25.07.1975 and, therefore, u/s. 6 of the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act on 14.06.1975, when the sale deeds in question were executed, even for the sake of argument, this provision of automatic redemption was not in force. However, the legal redemption does not debar a debtor from voluntarily paying his creditor out of court and, therefore, if respondents Nos. 5 to 7 by an application clearly indicated their intention to allow the mortgage amount out of the consideration to be paid to the mortgagee, then there could be no obstruction in the way of the Deputy Collector to make that payment. However, it is not necessary to enter into any long discussion as I have already stated that the advantage if any of this automatic redemption u/s. 12 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act also must go to the respondents Nos. 5 to 7 and not to the petitioners. The petitioners have got no right in law to claim the said amount. The contest if any in this regard would be between the respondents Nos. 5 to 7 on the one hand and the mortgagee on the other. 7. For the reasons discussed above, I do not find any merit in these applications and would accordingly dismiss the same, but in the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs.