IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.638 of 1991 1. (a) Sukan Pandit (b) Ram Dahin Pandit © Ram Bali Pandit All the three sons of late Durga Pandit. 2. (a) Shivjee Pandit (b) Shiv Nath Pandit Both sons of late Bhabhikshan Pandit (c) Most. Shanti Devi, W/o – late Bhabhikshan Pandit, All resident of village Fatehabad, P.S. Hazipur Sadar, District – Vaishali. (d) Sumitra Devi, W/o – Radhey Pandit, resident of village – Dahua, P.S. and P.O. Patepur, District – Vaishali. (e) Sudha Devi, W/o – Ayodhya Pandit, resident of village – Manpur, P.S. Dholi, P.O. Silaut, District – Muzaffarpur. (f) Sunita Devi W/o – Surendra Pandit, resident of village Jahangirpur Patarha, P.S. and P.O. Sarai, District – Vaishali. (g) Punam Kumari, W/o – Krishna Pandit, resident of village Jahangirpur Patarha, P.S. and P.O. Sarai, District – Vaishali. ----------------- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Vaishali. 3. Mohammad Sahadat Ali son of late Abdul Rahman, resident of village – Fatehabad P.S. Hajipur Sadar, District – Vaishali. ----------------- Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ram Sagar Mahto, Adv. ----------- 6 12.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. While exercising power under section 32 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, the Collector of the District of Vaishali at Hazipur has not only imposed a fine on the petitioners for violation of Section 5 of the Act, but has also declared the sale deed dated 23.06.1982 as void. The petitioner therefore, wants quashing of Annexure -2 dated 28.02.1990. Submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the - 2 - order in question is erroneous inasmuch as the collector has himself recorded that the statement of principle under sub- section (1) of Section 10 has been published on 16.06.1983, whereas the sale has been executed on 23.06.1982 itself, if that is the factual position then there is no breach of Section 5. The additional submission is that this was a chak out land, and even the permission had been taken from the Consolidation Officer. A challenge thrown by the respondents to the said order in appeal was also negated. In the above circumstance, there was no occasion to invoke Section 32 of the Act and pass the order in question. The court is an agreement with the two submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is not disputed that statement of principle had actually been published on 16.08.1983. For the land in question, permission had been obtained, though there is some dispute with regard to the area and place for which the permission was obtained. Keeping in mind the date of publication of the statement of principle is later to the date of transfer, the writ application is allowed. Annexure – 2 stands quashed. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)