IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.433 of 2008 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 11017/2004) Jay Narayan Thakur, son of Ram Bhajan Thakur, resident of village- Ajamatpur, P.S.- Rajapakar, District-Vaishali ….. Respondent-Appellant Versus 01. Dineshwar Thakur 02. Kamleshwar Thakur, both sons of Anirudh Thakur Both resident of village-Auamatpur, P.S.-Rajapakar, District- Vaishali ….. Petitioners-Respondent Ist Set 03. The State of Bihar 04. The District Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur 05. The Deputy Director, Consolidation Vaishali at Hajipur 06. The Assistant Director, C9onsolidation, Vaishali at Hajipur 07. The Consolidation Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur ….. Respondent no. 1 to 5- Respondent IInd set ---------------------------------- 11. 17.10.2011 The present Appeal is filed against the order dated 17.01.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.11017 of 2004 by the appellant who filed the writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 9.7.2004 as contained in Annexure-6, whereby the Collector, Vaishali has declared the deed of gift executed in favour of unofficial respondent in the appeal to be void in purporting exercise of power under Section 32 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. Learned Single Judge after hearing the mater has allowed the writ petition and quashed the order contained in Annexure-6 on the ground that 2 there is no requirement for obtaining permission under Section 5 and 6 of the Act for execution of a deed of gift during the aforesaid period. Learned counsel for the respondent appellant herein has filed the present appeal aggrieved by such order. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the gift of deed was executed on 5.3.1990, however consolidation proceeding was started by the State of Bihar on 31.10.1980 subsequently by virtue of notification dated 2.11.1993 it was stayed and hence observation of the learned Single Judge that there is no requirement for prior permission under Section 5 of the Act as contained in Annexure-5 during this period cannot be sustained for the reason that on 15.3.1990 notification was suspended. Learned counsel for the respondent appellant herein has contended that the aforesaid notification was subsequently stayed on 2.11.1993 and therefore there is no need for grant of permission of Collector for execution of deed of gift. The undisputed fact would reveal that the deed of gift was executed on 5.3.1990 and notification for saying the consolidation proceeding was issued on 31.10.1980 and it was suspended on 2.11.1993 which fact was again concealed. The notification for 3 the Consolidation proceeding was already to be proceeded with. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in absence of any notification for suspension available as on the date of execution of the deed of gift, the respondents are bound to follow the procedure of law for obtaining prior permission of Collector as per section 5 of the Act before executing a deed of gift. The above proposition can be supported by the judgment of this Court in Bhaiya Ram Singh Versus Director of Consolidation reported in 1987 PLJR 120. After having heard both sides, we are of the opinion that on the date of execution of the gift deed, the proceeding was not stayed and the same was stayed merely a period of three years i.e. on 2.11.1993 as such the observation of learned Single Judge that the deed of gift was suspended during that period cannot be sustained. Accordingly the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the L.P.A. stands allowed. P.K. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)