IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4567 of 2009 1. Arvind Kumar, 2. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, 3. Manoj Kumar, 4. Basant Kumar, All are sons of Narain Prasad Sinha resident of Village- Mehasia, P.S. Riga, District- Sitamarhi, at present resident of Mohalla-Bhaodepur, Ward No.14, Sitamarhi Municipality, P.S. & District- Sitamarhi… ….Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Collector Sitamarhi, 2. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi…. …Respondent 1st Set, 3. Achaibar Missir son of Shri Ramdhari Missir, 4. Jogendra Missir @ Jogin Lal Missir son of Achaibar Missir, Both are resident of Village-Mehesia, P.S. Riga, District- Sitamarhi… ….Respondent 2nd Sets 5. Santosh Kumar, 6. Anil Kumar Both are sons of Sri Narain Prasad Sinha, resident of Mehasia, P.S. Riga, District- Sitamarhi…. …..Respondent 3set …….Respondents ……………………… For the Petitioners : Mr. Shankar Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rabindra Kr. Choubey, S.C. 8 ……………………………. 2 19.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 3.3.09 (Annexure-1) passed by the Collector, Sitamarhi in Miscellaneous (Consolidation) Case 2 No.258/1977, whereby he has refrained from deciding the case on the basis that he has not been conferred jurisdiction for deciding such cases. This appears to be second round of litigation. On the earlier occasion, by order dated 5.2.86, as contained in Annexure- 2, the Collector of the District had heard the matter and held the sale deed concerned to be void in view the same having been executed without permission of the consolidation authorities and also had imposed a fine of Rs.150/-. The matter was challenged by preferring C.W.J.C. No.3245 of 1986. The writ application was allowed on the ground that the Collector of the District, though had taken note of the objection raised by the writ petitioner, however, he had passed order without recording any finding thereupon as to whether the permission was necessary to be obtained prior to the execution of the sale deed or not. Thus, the matter, after setting aside the impugned order, was remitted back for reconsideration. However, this time respondent no.2 has closed the case on the ground that there is no 3 notification of the State Government conferring jurisdiction upon him to decide such cases. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it would be clear from statutory provisions, as contained under Section 32 of the Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, that the Collector of the District is only authority empowered to decide the matter under Section 32 and even impose fine. Learned counsel appearing for the State is also not in a position to controvert the aforesaid submission. For better appreciation of relevant Section 32 of the Act is quoted as under: “32. Transfer of the lands prohibited – The transfer of any land or fragment contrary to the provisions of this Act shall be void; and the owner of any land, so transferred shall be liable to pay such fine, not exceeding two hundred and fifty rupees, as the Collector of the district may, subject to the general orders of the State Government, direct.” On plain reading of the relevant provision, I do not have any difficulty to hold that, as per statutory mandate, the transfer of any land or fragment contrary to the provisions of the Act would 4 be void, and the Collector of the District has been empowered to decide the question of imposing a fine for making such void transfers . However, that would not exceed Rs.250/- subject to the general orders of the State Government. . It is also noticed that while considering the earlier order passed by the Collector of the District in this regard, this Court has not come to the conclusion that the order passed by the Collector was without jurisdiction rather the order was quashed on different ground. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed. The order impugned dated 3.3.09 (Annexure-1) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2, i.e., the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Sitmarhi to consider the case on merit and decide the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties by recording a reasoned order. Since the matter is old one, it is expected that respondent no.2 shall take every step for expeditious disposal of the same preferably within a 5 period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order. Sanjay-II (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)