Judgment Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. All the three writ applications have challenged the order dated 19.6.1989 contained in Annexure-1 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue as well as the order dated 18.8.1988 contained in Annexure-3 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms to be erroneous in law and facts. Petitioner is a pre-emptor and he had filed a pre-emption application on 20.11.1987 under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (for short the Act). The application was moved before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms in relation to three sets of sale deeds which were executed on 2.8.1986 and was registered on 20.8.1987. Petitioners claim was that he was a co-sharer if not an adjoining raiyat. The description of the land is given in paragraph 3 of the writ application. Learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms vide order dated 18.8.1988 rejected the claim of the petitioner contained in Annexure-3 on the ground that the application in question has been filed after 90 days. The matter was taken up in appeal and the appellate authority vide order contained in Annexure-2 remanded the matter back for fresh consideration on merits of the case. However, the private respondents moved the Board of Revenue and Member, Board of Revenue vide order dated 19.6.1989 contained in Annexure-1 allowed the application filed under Section 32 of the Act and set aside the order of the appellate authority contained in Annexure-2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms contained in Annexure-3 as well as the revisional order of Member, Board of Revenue contained in Annexure-1 are both illegal orders and shows total lack of application of mind to the issues raised. His first contention is that the application under Section 16(3) of the Act has to be filed within three calendar months and not 90 days. In this regard he relies on a Division Bench decision rendered in the case of Most. Lal Mani Devi V/s. State of Bihar, 1999 2 PUR 356. His first contention is that the application under Section 16(3) of the Act has to be filed within three calendar months and not 90 days. In this regard he relies on a Division Bench decision rendered in the case of Most. Lal Mani Devi V/s. State of Bihar, 1999 2 PUR 356. A Division Bench of this Court categorically held that the provisions under Section 16(3) talks in terms of three calendar months and not 90 days and if an authority rejected the claim of a pre-emptor on the ground that an application was filed after 90 days then the said stand or decision is obviously erroneous. 4. The second submission of the petitioner is that in any view the date of the registration must be ignored and three months should be counted thereafter. In support of this submission learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Ram Nandan Singh V/s. Ramadhar Singh, AIR 1966 Pat 297 (F.B.) even though this case was not strictly under the Ceiling Act but the Full Bench taking note of the provisions of the Bihar & Orissa General Clauses Act as well as the Limitation Act came to a conclusion that the date of the order or the declaration of the resolution has to be excluded in counting the period of 30 days as was the case before the Full Bench. 5. The Law of Limitation may not be applicable to the cases under Section 16(3) of the Act but it cannot be said that there is no application of the General Clauses Act. The petitioners contention, therefore, seems to be correct. 6. The third contention of the petitioner as a matter of abundant caution is that merely because many years have gone by, therefore, that should not be made a ground by this Court to ignore his claim and right of pre-emption under the Act. In this regard he relies on a decision rendered in the case of Abdul Gafoor V/s. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, 1984 0 PLJR 771 . A Single Judge while rendering a decision in the matter held that merely because 18 years had gone by in disposal of pre-emption application and where pre-emptor was in no way responsible for the delay, the application cannot be rejected. 7. A Single Judge while rendering a decision in the matter held that merely because 18 years had gone by in disposal of pre-emption application and where pre-emptor was in no way responsible for the delay, the application cannot be rejected. 7. The submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner based on various decision rendered by different Benches of this Court seems to be correct, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms while passing impugned order contained in Annexure-3 as well as the Member, Board of Revenue while passing the order contained in Annexure-1 have not understood the law in right perspective. The appellate authority had rightly remanded the matter back to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms to decide the issue on its own merits by taking the pleadings of parties and not rejecting the claim of the petitioner on mere technicality, which was also wrongly applied to the present case. The two impugned orders contained in Annexures-1 and 3 are hereby set aside. The order contained in Annexure-2 is upheld and the matter is remanded back to the Court of Deputy Collector Land Reforms, who shall decide the issue of preemption on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and on its own merits and not on the technical ground that the application in question was barred under Section 16(3) of the Act. 8. In the result, all the three writ applications are allowed and the impugned orders as indicated above are hereby quashed. There shall, however, be not orders as to cost.