CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.3363 OF 1990 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. … 1. (a) Naresh Paswan, 1. (b) Akhilesh Paswan, both sons of Late Fakira Paswan, 2. Jhamman Paswan, son of Late Bishuni Paswan, 3. Batahu Paswan, son of Late Dhenukhi Paswan, all of village Gadhsisai, PS Dalsingsarai, Dist. Samastipur. 4. Nanki Poddar, 5. Sidhu Poddar, 6. Muntun Poddar, 7. Umesh Poddar, all sons of Late Ramsharan Poddar, 8. (a) Shanti Devi, wife of Late Hira Poddar, 9. (b) Ganga Poddar, son of Late Jagat Poddar, residents of Lakshmipur Maheshpatti, PS Ujiyarpur, Dist. Samastipur – Petitioners. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) The Collector, Samastipur. 3) The Consolidation Officer, Ujiyarpur, Samastipur. 4) Sonelal Sahni, son of Khokha Sahni, village Lakshmipur Maheshpatti, PS Ujiyarpur, Dist. Samastipur – Respondents. … For the petitioners – Mr. Akshay Bahadur Mathur and Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, Advocates. For the State – Mr. Gajendra Nath Ojha, A.C. to G.A. II. For respondent no. 4 – Mr. Abbas Haider, Advocate. … P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan,J. The petitioners have challenged the order, dated 17.4.1990 passed by the Collector, Samastipur in Case No. 379 of 1988 by which he has cancelled the sale deed of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners or their vendor did not take the permission to sell the lands in question from the Consolidation Officer under section 5 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of fragmentation Act, 1956. 2. The aforesaid order relies on a report of the 2 Consolidation Officer, Ujiyarpur which is contained in Annexure 2. On perusal of Annexure 2 it appears that the Consolidation Officer has merely said that no permission was taken before the execution of the sale deed. The report does not discuss the nature of the lands or the purpose for which it was being utilised. 3. Counsel for the petitioners relies on Annexure 3 which is an application seeking information regarding the nature of lands appertaining to khesra nos. 7889, 7882, 7888 and 7883. The Consolidation Officer on 30.6.1989 provided information that the lands in question were Basgit lands. Meaning thereby that the lands are used for the residential purposes. The position, therefore, would be that, if the lands in question are purely residential lands and are used for such purposes, it cannot be said that permission to sell is required under section 5 of the Act. Apparently in this case there was no occasion for enquiry which would indicate the nature of the lands. Besides this, the order of the Collector seems to have been passed without application of mind as he ought to have considered whether section 5 and 5A of the Act would be applicable in this case. 4. In any view of the matter, the petitioners should apply to the Consolidation Officer / Circle Officer concerned for spot verification of the lands which are the subject matter of the sale deeds giving details in their application regarding the lands which should be inspected along with a copy of the sale deed. The local inspection should be made and thereafter the report be sent to the Collector, Samastipur, who will pass appropriate orders after examining the 3 report and hearing the petitioners. Accordingly, order dated 17.4.1990 contained in Annexure 5 is hereby quashed and this writ petition is allowed to the extent mentioned aforesaid. Patna High Court, August 12, 2010, NAFR / haque. (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)