ORDER : I.A. No. 5996 of 2020 1. This interlocutory application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 14 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having considered the cause shown by the appellants, we are inclined to condone the delay of 14 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal and, accordingly, I.A. No. 5996 of 2020 is allowed. L.P.A. No. 443 of 2019 3. Abdul Hamid @ Bartu Mian resident of village Uperlotto within PS and district Latehar (respondent no. 4 herein) moved this Court in W.P. (C) No. 759 of 2016 to challenge the revisional order dated 20th July 2015 passed in Land Ceiling Revision Case No. 28 of 2011 by which the orders passed in his favor allowing the application under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (in short Act of 1961) have been set-aside. 4. The writ Court by an order dated 15th February 2019 allowed the writ petition and interfered with the revisional order on the basis of the judgment in Radhe Sharma vs. State of Bihar through District Magistrate and Others, 2009 (4) PLJR 423 to hold that the provisions under Rule 19(3) of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rule, 1963 are not mandatory. 5. The writ Court has held as under: “12. This court finds that the provisions contained in Rule 19(3) of the rules of 1963 is basically in the nature of notice being given to the transferor and transferee regarding filing of the application exercising the right of pre-emption by the preemptor. This court finds that the Collector is required to hear and decide the matter after hearing all the parties i.e the transferor and transferee as well as the pre-emptor after issuing notice to the parties under rule 19(4) of the rules of 1963. This court further finds that even if the notice is not issued by the applicant at the stage of filing of the case for pre-emption, the application for pre-emption cannot be allowed without issuing notice to the seller and purchaser of the property and without granting them an opportunity of hearing by the authority. 13. This court further finds that even if the notice is not issued by the applicant at the stage of filing of the case for pre-emption, the application for pre-emption cannot be allowed without issuing notice to the seller and purchaser of the property and without granting them an opportunity of hearing by the authority. 13. Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that issuance of notice under Section 19(3) of the Rule of 1963 to the transferor and transferee, at the stage of filing the application for pre-emption is directory and not mandatory and further non issuance of such notice under rule 19(3) of the Rules does not prejudice any of the parties, in as much as the parties are required to be heard by the authority before passing any order for which separate notice is contemplated under the provisions of 19(4) of the aforesaid rules of 1963. In aforesaid view of the matter, this court finds that non compliance of sending notice to the seller and purchaser of the property involved in this case under rule 19(3) of the rules of 1963 is not fatal to the application for pre-emption filed by the petitioner. 14. This court further finds that in identical situation, in the case reported in Mohammad Shafique Ahmad vs. State of Bihar, 1995 (1) PLJR 851 which related to issuance of notice under Rule 19(3), the Hon’ble Patna High court has already held that provision therein are merely directory and not mandatory. 15. So far as the judgment reported in AIR 1989 Patna 50 (supra), is concerned ,this court finds that in the said case, transferor was not made a party to the proceeding and it was held that transferor is a necessary party to the proceeding under the provisions of Section 16(3) of the aforesaid Act of 1961 and merely because at the later stage one of the legal heirs of the deceased transferor was made party before the Member, Board of Revenue, the same would not cure the defect. So far as non compliance of Rule 19 is concerned, in this judgment it was also held that in terms of Rule 19(4) of the aforesaid rules of 1963 the Collector is bound to issue notice to the transferor and give an opportunity of show cause to the transferor and also transferee and accordingly, Rule 19 of the Rules of 1963 was held to be mandatory. In the said case, in absence of any notice to the transferor, the entire proceeding was vitiated in law. In the instant case admittedly notices were issue to the parties in terms of Rule 19(4) of the aforesaid Rules of 1963 and accordingly the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in AIR 1989 Patna 50 does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. 16. So far as other judgment which has reported in 2009 (4) PLJR 423 is concerned , this court finds that the pre-emption application in the said case was dismissed on technical ground due to certain defect in L.C. Form XIII and non compliance of Rule 19 of the aforesaid Rules of 1963 against which appeal was filed which was allowed holding that there was sufficient compliance of Rule 19 and thereafter revision was filed before the Board of Revenue which was decided by ex-parte order and the said ex-parte order was impugned in the writ petition. The Hon’ble High Court remanded the matter back to the revisional authority for determining as to whether there was sufficient compliance of Rule 19 of the aforesaid Rules of 1963 and the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the aforesaid judgment also considered the various other judgments and observed that while considering the object of Rule 19 of the said rules of 1963 and L.C. Form-XIII, it has been held that same are directory instructions and if there is sufficient compliance thereof, the application can be validly entertained by the Collector. This court finds that in the instant case although no notice under Rule 19(3) was issued at the stage of filing of application for preemption, but certainly notice under Rule 19(4) of the aforesaid Rules of 1963 was issued to all the parties concerned and due opportunity of hearing was granted to the parties i.e the pre-emptor, the purchaser and seller of the property. Accordingly, this court finds that there was sufficient compliance of Rule 19 of the aforesaid Rules of 1963 and non-issuance of notice under Section 19(3) at the stage of filing of the case is not fatal to the proceedings and has not caused prejudice to any of the parties. This court finds that the aforesaid judgments which has been relied upon in the impugned order does not help the respondents in any manner whatsoever. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order dated 20.07.2015, passed in Land Ceiling Revision Case No. 28/2011 by Additional Member Board of Revenue, is hereby set aside.” 6. Rule 19 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rule, 1963 is extracted below: “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. (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 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. (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.” 7. The appellants claiming themselves adjoining raiyat by virtue of being a member of the family of Vishwanath Prajapati purchased a piece of land from Gulab Chand and Jagdish Prasad through sale-deed dated 21st May 2008. There is no dispute that the lands of Vishwanath Prajapati are adjoining to the lands comprised under sale-deed dated 21st may 2008 which are purchased by the appellants from Gulab Chand and Jagdish Prasad. Rule 19(3) provides that a copy of the pre-emption application shall be simultaneously sent to the transferor and the transferee. This provision under Rule 19(3) has been held directory and not mandatory by the writ Court. Even accepting this finding of the writ Court any interference with the revisional order dated 20th July 2015 does not appear to be proper inasmuch as the writ Court has overlooked the patent illegality in the orders passed by the original and appellate authorities. Now this is a well settled proposition in law that the writ Court shall not interfere with an order which was not in consonance with the law if such interference perpetuate illegality. 8. In Chandra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 6 SCC 545 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “43. Issuance of a writ of certiorari is a discretionary remedy. [See Champalal Binani vs. CIT] The High Court and consequently this Court while exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India may not strike down an illegal order although it would be lawful to do so. In a given case, the High Court or this Court may refuse to extend the benefit of a discretionary relief to the applicant......” 9. The right to pre-emption is a weak right in law and in appropriate cases the Court can decline to pass an order under section 16(3) of the Act of 1961. 10. In a given case, the High Court or this Court may refuse to extend the benefit of a discretionary relief to the applicant......” 9. The right to pre-emption is a weak right in law and in appropriate cases the Court can decline to pass an order under section 16(3) of the Act of 1961. 10. In Kumar Gonsusab vs. Mohd. Miyan, (2008) 10 SCC 153 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “19.......It is well settled that it would be open to the pre-emptee, to defeat the law of pre-emption by any legitimate means, which is not fraud on the part of either the vendor or the vendee and a person is entitled to steer clear of the law of pre-emption by all lawful means. 20. That apart, it is now well settled that the right of pre-emption is a weak right and is not looked upon with favour by courts and therefore the courts cannot go out of their way to help the pre-emptor.” 11. The facts of the case disclose that the pre-emptor claiming himself an adjoining raiyat filed the application under section 16(3) on 28th June 2008 to challenge the sale-deed dated 21st May 2008 executed in favor of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 in W.P. (C) No. 759 of 2016. However, in the proceeding of Land Ceiling Case No. 03 of 2008-09 the parties were not offered an opportunity to lay oral evidence. The appellate authority has also declined to interfere with the order dated 21st August 2009 by observing that having considered the materials on record and keeping in mind the provisions of Bihar Land Ceiling Act and the judgments of the High Court the plea put forth by the appellants cannot be accepted. 12. The only consideration by the appellate authority in its order dated 27th July 2010 is as under: ^^mHk; i{kksa ds rdksZ dk vuq'khyu fuEu U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ,oa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu rFkk fcgkj yS.M lhfyax ,DV rFkk mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'kksa ds v/;;u ds i'pkr v/kksgLrk{kjh bl fu"d"kZ ij ig¡qprs gS fd vihykFkhZ dk rdZ Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gSA** 13. This is not in dispute that Vishwanath Prajapati is the adjoining raiyat and there are several other persons who have lands adjoining to the lands comprised under sale-deed dated 21st May 2008. This is not in dispute that Vishwanath Prajapati is the adjoining raiyat and there are several other persons who have lands adjoining to the lands comprised under sale-deed dated 21st May 2008. The revenue authorities have also recorded a finding that only a corner of the land owned by the pre-emptor touches with the western portion of the land comprised under the sale-deed dated 21st May 2008. As we have noticed, before the revenue authorities the parties did not lay oral evidence and only on the basis of an affidavit filed by Vishwanath Prajapati the Deputy Commissioner Land Reforms has held that the appellant is not a co-sharer in the joint family of Vishwanath Prajapati. On a glance at the appellate order dated 27th July 2010, it is revealed that several objections were raised by the appellants which however have not been dealt with by the appellate authority and no finding thereon has been recorded. The appeal under section 30 of the Act of 1961 is no doubt open both on facts and in law and the appellate authority exercising powers under section 30 is required to record its independent finding on the rival contentions raised before him. 14. Evidently the procedure adopted by the revenue authorities cannot be countenanced in law. There was no real adjudication of the objections raised by the appellants and the sellers who were the respondent nos. 6 and 7 in W.P. (C) No. 759 of 2016. 15. Therefore we are inclined to interfere with the writ Court's order and, accordingly, order dated 15th February 2019 passed in W.P. (C) No. 759 of 2016 is set-aside. 16. L.P.A. No. 443 of 2019 is allowed.