JUDGMENT : This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the respondent no.2 as contained in annexure-9 annexed to the writ petition, whereby and whereunder the order passed on 12.01.2011 by the Additional Collector, Bokaro in Land Ceiling Case No.05 of 2005 and orders dated 20.11.2002 and 14.05.2005 passed by the Land Reforms, Deputy Collector, Bermo at Tenughat in Land Ceiling Case No.24 of 2002 have been set aside, rejecting the right of the petitioner which has sought for under the provision of Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in this writ petition is that the petitioner being adjoining raiyat of the land comprising 0.5 ½ Acres of land situated over plot no.1383 of khata no.101 of Village-Bhendra, P.S.-Nawadih, District-Bokaro, which has been sold out in favour of one Smt. Premlata Devi by virtue of registered sale deed no.3269 dated 19.12.2001, has filed an application under the provision of Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 for preemption and deposited the consideration value by a Treasury Challan being L.C. Case No.24 of 2002 before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bermo at Tenughat, purchaser has appeared and filed their objections, denied the claim, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms after hearing the parties has passed an order on 20.11.2002 in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the fact that the nature of land is agricultural and the petitioner is an adjoining raiyat, against which, the respondent no.5 has preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 20.11.2002 being L.C. Appeal No.08 of 2002, wherein, the appellate authority has directed to pass an order of spot verification of land and remitted the matter before the authority for passing a fresh order, the Deputy Collector, land Reforms vide order dated 14.05.2005 passed in L.C. Case No.24 of 2002 has held that a local inspection was already done and in view thereof the order passed by the original authority dated 20.11.2002 again being reiterated while disposing of the application on remand. 3. 3. Being aggrieved with the order dated 14.05.2005 passed in L.C. Case No.24 of 2002, an appeal was preferred being L.C. Appeal No.05 of 2005 vide order dated 12.01.2011 but Additional Collector, Bokaro has affirmed the order, against which, respondent no.5 has preferred revision before the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi being L.C. Revision Case No.07 of 2011, wherein, the order was passed by reversing the order of the original authority and appellate authority, against which, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in L.C. Revision Case No.07 of 2011 has submitted that the revisional authority has not appreciated the earlier inquiry report basis upon which order was passed on 20.11.2002 and further the original authority again vide order dated 14.05.2005, on remand by the appellate authority while disposing of the L.C. Appeal No.08 of 2002 has reiterated the same finding as has been given vide order dated 20.11.2002. Further, the revisional authority has not appreciated the fact that the nature of land has subsequently been changed from the agricultural to homestead land. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent State has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the revisional authority rather the revisional authority after getting the inspection done by issuing the direction upon the Additional Collector, Bokaro that the land in question was not fit for agriculture and exercising the power conferred under the provision of Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 has passed the said order, hence the same suffered with no infirmity. It has been submitted that right of Preemption under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961, is a weak right and it can only be given in favour of adjoining raiyat, if the land has found to be agricultural one but here in the instant case, on subsequent inquiry, it has been found that the land in question is not fit for agriculture, therefore, decision has been taken by the Member, Board of Revenue by reversing the order passed by the revisional authority. He has further submitted that the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms has exceeded his jurisdiction by not complying with the order passed by the appellate authority in L.C. Appeal No.08 of 2002 (annexure-4), whereby and whereunder, the matter has been remitted before him to pass a fresh order after getting the land inspected but the L.R.D.C, Bokaro vide order dated 14.05.2005 has not followed the direction passed by the appellate authority as would be evident from the annexure-5 and basing upon the inquiry report conducted earlier i.e. at the time of passing of the order dated 20.11.2002 again passed the same order, although, the same has been affirmed by the appellate authority but the question herein is that when the appellate authority has remitted the matter before the original authority to pass fresh order after inspecting the spot, it was incumbent upon the original authority to comply with the aforesaid order but having not done so, he has exceeded his jurisdiction, although the same has been affirmed by the appellate authority but the revisional authority in course of pendency, has directed the Additional Collector, Bokaro to get the land inspected and in terms of the said direction the inspection report has been submitted to the effect that the land in question is not for agricultural purposes rather lying just adjacent to the PCC road, hence the order passed by the original authority as also appellate authority has been quashed and the application filed under the provision of Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 has been dismissed, hence, there is no infirmity in the same. 6. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating their rival submissions, this Court thinks it proper before looking into legality and propriety of the order to make reference of the provision of Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 which is being referred hereinbelow:- “Section 16(3) (i) When any transfer of land is made after the commencement of this Act to any person other than a co-sharer or a raiyat of adjoining land, any co-sharer of the transferor or any raiyat holding land adjoining the land transferred, shall be entitled, within three months of the date of registration of the document of the transfer, to make an application before the Collector in the prescribed matter for the transfer of the land to him on the terms and conditions contained in the said deed: 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 the said period. (ii) On such deposit being made, the co-sharer or the raiyat shall 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 land and possession thereof shall be restored to the transferee and the 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) If the application is allowed, the Collector shall be an order direct the transferee to convey the land in favour of the applicant by executing and registering a document of transfer within a period to be specified in the order and, it he neglects or refuses to comply with the direction, the procedure, prescribed in Order XXI, Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V 1908), shall be, so far as may be followed.” 7. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that being entitled to get the benefit of provision of Section 16(3), the condition precedent is that if a person is a raiyat of adjoining land, the raiyat holding land adjoining the land transferred, shall be entitled, within three months from the date of registration of the document of the 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, therefore, the condition is that the land should be agricultural and the claimant should be adjoining raiyat/family members. 8. The facts of the case is that the petitioner claims to be the adjoining raiyat of the land in question and when it was transferred by virtue of registered sale deed no.3269 dated 19.12.2001 in favour of one Smt. Premlata Devi, application under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 was filed before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bermo at Tenughat being L.C. Case No.24 of 2002 has passed the order on 20.11.2002 as would be evident from annexure-3, wherefrom it is evident on the basis of the local inspection since the land in question is just adjacent to the PCC road but some of the land are being used for the agricultural purposes and since the petitioner is adjoining raiyat, therefore, the application under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 has been allowed with a direction to transfer the land in question in favour of the petitioner. 9. The order dated 20.11.2002 was challenged before the appellate authority being Land Ceiling Appeal No.08 of 2002 (annexure-4) and before the Additional Collector, Bokaro and the appellate authority after hearing the parties has remitted the matter before the original authority for passing a fresh order by conducting self- inspection of the land in question. 10. It is admitted position that the order dated 28.06.2004 passed in Land Ceiling Appeal No.08 of 2002 has not been questioned by the petitioner. 11. 10. It is admitted position that the order dated 28.06.2004 passed in Land Ceiling Appeal No.08 of 2002 has not been questioned by the petitioner. 11. The matter, on remand, has been dealt with by the original authority by revising the proceeding being Land Ceiling Case No.24 of 2002, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, has differed with the direction passed by the appellate authority, so far as it relates to conducting self-inspection of the land in question by taking aid of the provision of Rule 19 of the Rules, 1963 and taken the same view as was taken by him while passing the order dated 20.11.2002. The said order has been affirmed by the appellate authority in L.C. Appeal Case No.05 of 2005 dated 12.01.2011 against which, revision has been preferred by the petitioner, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition. 12. The question herein is that:- (i.) “Whether the original authority while exercising the power conferred under the provision of Section 16(3) can flout in direction passed by the appellate authority, moreover when the order passed by the appellate authority has not been questioned by any of the parties? (ii.) Whether original authority can be allowed to exceed his jurisdiction by taking aid of provision of Rule 19 of the Rules, 1963 by sitting over upon the order passed by the appellate authority is not inspecting the land before passing a fresh order. (iii.) Whether the revisional authority while directing Additional Collector to re-inspect the land has committed error?” 13. Before answering this question, it would be proper to consider the provision of Rule 19 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules, 1963 which speaks as follows:- “19. Application by co-sharer or a raiyat of adjoining land for transfer of land under Section 16(3).-(1) Application by a co-sharer or raiyat of adjoining land for transfer of land under 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 of the Challan, showing deposit of the amount under sub-rule (1) 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. (2) A copy of the Challan, showing deposit of the amount under sub-rule (1) 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 post with acknowledgement 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, if any, and of being heard, shall be an order in writing, either allow the application in accordance with law clause (iii) of sub-section (3) of Section 16, 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 an 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 transferee shall be allowed to withdraw the money deposited by the applicant.” 14. It is evident from the aforesaid provision as referred hereinabove that the process of application under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961, under the said provision, there is no bar for conducting second spot inspection and therefore, the plea which has been taken by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms in the order dated 14.05.2005 cannot be said to be legal in terms of the provision of Rule 19 of the Rules, 1963. 15. It is not in dispute that when any matter is being considered by the appellate authority, the original authority may pass the same order which has been passed on earlier occasion but he cannot sit over, upon the order passed by the appellate authority as has been done in the instant case. 16. 15. It is not in dispute that when any matter is being considered by the appellate authority, the original authority may pass the same order which has been passed on earlier occasion but he cannot sit over, upon the order passed by the appellate authority as has been done in the instant case. 16. Herein, the appellate authority while remitting the matter, has directed the original authority to get the land inspected by visiting the spot himself and pass a fresh order but he has differed with the said finding by showing therein that there is no provision of reinspection which is restrained under the provision of Rule 19 of the Rules, 1963, question would be that when the appellate authority while exercising the quasi-judicial power, has got all the powers to reverse the finding given by the original authority or remitting the matter before the original authority for passing the order, the original authority is duty bound to follow the same before passeing fresh order but the direction passed by the appellate authority, so far as it relates to second spot inspection to be conducted himself has not been complied with, therefore the said order cannot said to be proper, although the said order has been affirmed by the appellate authority. The question again is that when any illegality has been committed, the same cannot be legalized, since the illegal order will be said to be illegal form its inception and any subsequent development cannot cure the illegality for the reason that illegality is to be tested from the inception and subsequent development if occurred cannot cure the same, the order having passed by the original authority, reiterated the same view by allowing the application filed by the petitioner filed under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 which has been questioned by the private respondent before the Member, Board of Revenue in exercise of revisional power wherein the Additional Collector has been directed to inspect the spot, so that the proper adjudication of the issue can be done. 17. It is settled position of law as has been held in the case of State of Orissa and Anr. Vrs. Mamata Mohanty, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 that once the Court comes to the conclusion that a wrong order has been passed, it becomes the solemn duty of the Court to rectify the mistake rather than perpetuate the same. It is settled position of law as has been held in the case of State of Orissa and Anr. Vrs. Mamata Mohanty, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 that once the Court comes to the conclusion that a wrong order has been passed, it becomes the solemn duty of the Court to rectify the mistake rather than perpetuate the same. 18. A report of Additional Collector was received before the revisional authority wherein, it has been reported that he land in question is situated adjoining to PCC road and the house of the petitioner is situated on the land in question, the report also suggests that the land in question is not fit for agriculture, therefore, order has been passed by quashing the order passed by the original authority as well as appellate authority, on the ground that the ingredient of Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 has not available. 19. It is not in dispute that the right of preemption is very weak right having not vested legal right and the same can only be applicable on the basis of the fulfillment of the condition as stipulated under the provision of Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 i.e. the land is said to be agricultural one and the claimant is either a family member or the adjoining raiyat. 20. The revisional authority having found these two conditions has not been fulfilled, has reversed the said orders passed by the original authority as well as appellate authority. 21. In view of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered view of this Court, there is no infirmity in the order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand under its revisional power. 22. Accordingly, this writ petition lacks merit, hence dismissed.