IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9063 of 1992 JAI PRAKSSH RAI SON OF LATE DASAI RAI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SULTANPUR POLICE STATION HAJIPUR DISTRICT- VAISHALI ………… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR. 3. SKALDEEP CHAUDHARY SON OF LATE NOKHI CHAUDHARY 4. RAM BRIKCH CHAUDHARY SON OF LATE NOKHI CHAUDHARY BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANGURAHI POLICE STATION HAJIPUR DISTRICT-VAISHALI. ….. Respondents. ----------- 5 14.01.2010 Heard Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma for the petitioner, and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No. 3 for respondent nos. 1 and 2. None appears on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 in spite of valid service of notice. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.5.1991 (Annexure-4) , passed by the learned Collector of the district of Vaishali, in R. Suit no. 94 of 1989-90 ((Sakaldeep Chaudhary versus Ram Brikch Chaudhary and Others), passed in purported exercise of powers under Section 32 of Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. We have perused the materials on record, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It relates to proceedings under Section 32 of the Act, and is with respect to plot no. 286, covering an area of 3 decimals, situated at village Mangurahi, Hajipur Anchal, District- Vaishali. 2 Respondent no. 4, alienated the land in question in favour of the petitioner by registered deed of absolute sale dated 9.8.1989. Respondent no. 3, full brother of respondent no. 4, filed an application under Section 32 of the Act before the learned Collector of the district of Vaishali for a declaration that the aforesaid sale deed is void on the ground that prior permission of the consolidation authority in terms of Section 5 of the Act was not obtained which renders the registered document void. 4. It appears to us that consolidation operations within the limits of Patna Regional Development Authority had been stayed by order dated 3.1.1987, passed by this court in C.W.J.C.. No. 995 of 1985 (Nand Kishore Singh & Others versus State of Bihar & Ors). It further appears that the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 16.4.1988. In other words, there was stay of consolidation proceedings within the said area for the period 3.1.1987 to 16.4.1988. The sale deed was executed or registered on 9.8.1989. It, therefore, appears to us that there was no legal requirement to obtain prior permission of the Collector of the district for the alienation in question. It further appears to us that the learned Collector has not declared the registered sale deed to be a void document, and has confined the relief to imposition of fine. It appears to us that such a course is not open to the learned Collector. We are of the view that fine in terms of Section 32 of the Act can be imposed only after the requisite declaration is granted that the document is void, fine being 3 consequential in nature. . 5. In the result, we allow this writ petition. The impugned order dated 30.5.1991, is hereby set aside. pkj (S.K. Katriar, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )