JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J : These two application involving common questions of fact and law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners are preemptors. The respondent no. 6 transferred 9 Kathas 17.5 dhurs of land out of 1 Bighs 3 dhurs in revisional survey plot no.223 corrsponding to Cadestrai Survey plot No.467 of village Baharampur for a consideration of Rs. 4500/- in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5. 3. The petitioners claiming themselves to be adjoining raiyats being allegedly holder of revisional survey settlement plot No 446 filed an application for pre emption purported to be under Section 16(3) of the Act on 16.5.1981. The said application was allowed exparte by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector by an order dated 30th July, 1981. The respondent Nos4 and 5 thereafter preferred an appeal 4. The appellate court on 29.3.1982 inter alia held :- (i) That the notices upon the respondent nos 4 and 5 were not properly served. (ii) That the petitioner deposited the challan under a wrong heading. (iii) The petitioner were not adjacent raiyats as they have not been able to prove partition amongst him and the Co-sharers" 5. Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner inter alias submitted that even if there had been no proper services of notice upon the respondent Nos.4 and 5, the appellate and the revisional authorities should have remitted the matter back to the court of Land reforms deputy Collector for a fresh hearing. 6. It was further submitted that so far as the deposit of the amount by Challan under a wrong head is concerned, the petitioner's right of preemption could not have been defeated thereby, in as much as the said provision is merely a directory and not a mandatory one. 7. The learned counsel in this connection has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hiralal Agarawal and another Vs. Rampadarath Singh and others reported in 1969 S.C. 244 and Chandra Mohan Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 1969 Allahabad page 230. 8. It was further submitted that the petitioners merely committed a bonafide mistake in depositing the amount in Treasury under a wrong head. 9. Rampadarath Singh and others reported in 1969 S.C. 244 and Chandra Mohan Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 1969 Allahabad page 230. 8. It was further submitted that the petitioners merely committed a bonafide mistake in depositing the amount in Treasury under a wrong head. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand submitted that from a perusal of the judgment dated 29.3.1982 as contained in Annexure.2 to the wit application, it would appear that a finding of fact has been arrived at by the appellate court that the petitioner is not an adjacent riyal. As the appellate court, submitted the learned counsel, was entitled to consider the merit of the case, the said finding of fact is binding upon this court and in that view of the matter, no interference with the impugned order is required to be made. 10. It was further submitted that the application for preemption has to be made in the prescribed form L.C. No.13 upon compliance of the provisions of Section 16(3) OF THE Bihar Land Reforms Rules 1963. 11. Mr. Choubey, in reply, submitted that the appellate court in is judgment has not considered the effect of the documents filed by the petitioners before him. He further submitted that in any event, the revisional court ought to have considered the question as to whether the petitioners are adjacent raiyats or not. 12. According to the learned counsel, on these grounds alone the judgment of the revisional authority con not be sustained. 13. In terms of Section 16(3) of the said Act an application for pre emption would be maintainable in the event, the applicant is a co-sharer or holds land adjoining the land transferred. Such an application before the Collector has to be filed in the prescribed manner. 14. In Ram Chandra Srivastava and others Vs. Paridh Narain and others reported in 1970 BLJR 1101 a Full Bench of this court has held that the right of a preemptor being a very weak right, the pre-emptor must the law so to enable him to maintain the application for preemption. 15. In terms of paragraph 2 of the application in prescribed form i.e. Form No.(LC) 13, the preemptor is required to deposit the consideration amount as also further amount equal to 10%there of to the credit of the Collector under the Act of the Areas concerned. 15. In terms of paragraph 2 of the application in prescribed form i.e. Form No.(LC) 13, the preemptor is required to deposit the consideration amount as also further amount equal to 10%there of to the credit of the Collector under the Act of the Areas concerned. Evidently the amount required under the Act has to be deposited under the proper head of the treasury so that the Collector under the said Act may in the event of success of the application for preemption may authorise the transferee to withdraw the same 16. From a perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority it appears that the deposit of the amount was required to be made w1der the head 843 Revenue deposit. It was concerned on behalf of the petitioner before the Appellate authority that the amount in question should have been deposited in the name of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Benipur and the matter relating to the deposit of the said amount which has been specially mentioned in the application was no done. The appellate court has held that any amount deposited in the treasury can be directed to be withdrawn by the Collector or the Treasury Officer. However the appellate court held: "Revenue deposit made me Jama ke gayee rasiki wapas nikalna ke prakriya kosgar sanihta awam koe miscellaneous rules medi gayee hai. Maine in do no ka adhyayan kiya unma kahi bhi prawdhan nahi hei ke samhartakisi ki khate me lama rasi ko nikala. 17. The appellate authority therefore held that the Collector under the said Act should have rejected the application summarily. 18. In Hiralal Agrawal" s case (Supra) the Supreme Court was considering the question as to whether an application for pre-emption which was filed before registration of the documents but cognizance whereof had been taken after the registration of the document would be premature or not. It was held that Rule 19 of the Rules was directory and thus a substantial compliance there of would meet the requirement of law. 19. However, in this case, the question which arises for consideration is absolutely a different one. A right of pre emption is really a right of substitution. Such a right being very weak right, the pre emptor is required to comply with all the requirement of law. 19. However, in this case, the question which arises for consideration is absolutely a different one. A right of pre emption is really a right of substitution. Such a right being very weak right, the pre emptor is required to comply with all the requirement of law. A deposit of the consideration amount as also 10% thereof under a proper head has been provided in the form of application itself. 20. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 16(3) of the Act. An application for pre emption has to be flied in the prescribed manner. 21. Rule 19 of the Rules provides as to how such an application has to be filed. The mistake on the part of the pititioner may be a bonafide mistake. 22. However, in view of the finding of the Collector, a deposit made in revenue head can be only withdrawn by the Collector meaning thereby the Collector of the district and not Collector under the said Act. The Collector under the Act is a person authorised to act as a Collector but collector for the purpose of Revenue matter must mean the Collector of the District. 23. In this view of the matter, it is not possible to agree with the contentions of Mr. Choubey that such a mistake in deposit of the amount could have been ignored. 24. In any event, as the dead in question was executed on 3.2.1981 : in my opinion, it will now be in appropriate to remit the matter back so as to enable the parties to fight out the matter once over again from the initial stage in exercise of my jurisdiction under Articles 227 of the Constitution Of India. 25. It is also pertinent to point out that the appellate court has clearly held that no proof of any partition was filed by the petitioner so as to enable the Collector to come to the conclusion that plot No.456,468 and 454 were allotted to his father. He further held that the area of Revisional Survey plot No.44 does not tally with the cadestral survey settlement plot Nos. 468, 456 and 454. It has been held by the appellate authority that the petitioner did not have not answer to the said questions. 26. It appears from the counter affidavit that the revisional survey settlement records of right had not yet been finally published. 468, 456 and 454. It has been held by the appellate authority that the petitioner did not have not answer to the said questions. 26. It appears from the counter affidavit that the revisional survey settlement records of right had not yet been finally published. It is true that the petitioner in the writ petition has contended that he had produced various documents during hearing, but the said documents as is evident from the tenor of the writ application were produced for the first time before the revisional authority. Before the revisional authority the documents were not proved. It is not the case of the petitioner that even any affidavit was filed in support of the claim that the plots in question were allotted by some mutual agreement. 27. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit categorically stated that neither the copies of the documents were served upon their counsel nor a list there of was filed before the Board of Revenue. 28. It has further been pointed out that document to prove partition had not been produced even before this court. 29. The respondent nos.4 and 5 in paragraph 16 and 17 of the Counter affidavit have stated thus: "That the petitioner claimed about some mutual agreement by which his father came in possession over plot nos.454.,456 and 468 but the same can't override the aforesaid compromise and courts partition The said agreement must be collusive and must have been manufactured for the purpose of this case. Moreover no such documentary agreement appears to have been filed before the learned D.C.L.R. or the Additional Collector. That the Appellate court discussed the matter in detail and found that the pre emptor petitioner filed to prove himself to be the boundary tenant of the vended land" 30. The petitioners have not filed any re joinder to the said counter affidavit. 31. Thus the statements made by the respondents to the aforementioned effect have not traversed. 32. It is true that the land Reforms Deputy Collector disposed of the petitioner's application for pre-emption exparte, but even an the basis of the material legally brought on records. 33. In terms of Rule 49 of the Rules, the appellate court under the said Act has all powers of the Civil Court. 32. It is true that the land Reforms Deputy Collector disposed of the petitioner's application for pre-emption exparte, but even an the basis of the material legally brought on records. 33. In terms of Rule 49 of the Rules, the appellate court under the said Act has all powers of the Civil Court. In terms of Order 41 Rule 14 of the C.P.C the first appellate court can decide the entire appeal, although the count below might have disposed of the suit on others issues. 34. In this case, the issues before the Collector under the said Act was only one: namely as to whether the petitioner was raiyat holding land adjoining to the transferred lands or not. The Appellate court, therefore, was entitled to consider the materials on records entitled to consider the materials on records and come to the conclusion that the Land Reforms Deputy Collector has committed an illegality in holding that the petitioner was an adjacent raiyat. 35. As noticed herein before, the petitioner's contention that he has filed various documents before the revisional court has been controverted. In any event, as indicated herein before it is not the case of the petitioner that such documents were proved after filling an application for adduction of additional evidence or for that matter any evidence at all was adduced. It is now well known that documents do not prove themselves. 36. For the reasons aforementioned, in my opinion, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned order. 37. These applications are therefore, dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Application dismissed