CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.6707 OF 2001 WITH CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.6532 OF 2001 WITH CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.6625 OF 2001 WITH CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.6676 OF 2001 WITH CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.6710 OF 2001 WITH CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.1612 OF 2002 ******* In the matter of applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ******* In CWJC No.6707 of 2001: 1. Dr. Sushil Kr. Verma, 2. Madhup Kr. Verma Both sons of late Kanak Lata Verma, wife of late Yashodanand Prasad Verma, resident of village- Laukar, P.S. Mainatand, District- West Champaran. 3. Smt. Sushma Verma, W/o Dr. K.N. Verma, resident of Chhata Chowk, P.S. Kalambagh, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Patna. 3. The Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah. 4. The Additional Collector (Ceiling), West Champaran, Bettiah. 5. The Anchal Adhikari, Mainatand, West Champaran, Bettiah. .... .... Respondents. ******** In CWJC No.6532 of 2001: Smt. Mohini Rai, wife of Shri S.R. Ray, resident of Mohalla-Jagat Narayan Road, Kadam Kuan, P.O. & P.S. Kadam Kuan, District- Patna, at present resident of Village- Dharauji, P.O. & P.S. Gaunaha, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Patna. 3. The Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah. 4. The Additional Collector (Ceiling), West Champaran, Bettiah. 5. The Anchal Adhikari, Mainatand, West Champaran, Bettiah. .... .... Respondents. ******* In CWJC No. 6625 of 2001: Smt.Asha Sinha, D/O Shri S.P. Verma, resident of Niranjanpur, P.S. Arwal, District- Gaya, w/o Shri Akshay Kumar Sinha, at present resident 2 of village- Dharampur, P.S. Gaunaha, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Patna. 3. The Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah. 4. The Additional Collector (Ceiling), West Champaran, Bettiah. 5. The Anchal Adhikari, Mainatand, West Champaran, Bettiah. .... .... Respondents. ******** In CWJC No. 6676 of 2001: Smt.Raj Mohini Sinha, wife of K.A. Sinha, resident of Giddi Colliery, P.S. and District- HJazaribagh, at present resident of village- Dhanauji, P.O. & P.S. Gaunaha, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Patna. 3. The Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah. 4. The Additional Collector (Ceiling), West Champaran, Bettiah. 5. The Anchal Adhikari, Mainatand, West Champaran, Bettiah. .... .... Respondents. ******** In CWJC No. 6710 of 2001: Smt.Indu Sinha @ Indu Devi, daughter of late Kailash Bihari Sinha, resident of Mohalla- Mewalipur, P.O. & P.S. & District- Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, presently resident of Village- Laukar, P.S. Maintand, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Patna. 3. The Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah. 4. The Additional Collector (Ceiling), West Champaran, Bettiah. 5. The Anchal Adhikari, Mainatand, West Champaran, Bettiah. .... .... Respondents. ******** In CWJC No. 1612 of 2002: Smt.Asha Lata Sinha, wife of Shri Muneshwari Prasad Sinha, resident of Mohalla- Ranighat, Mahendru, near Baby Land School, P.O. & P.S. Mahendru, District- Patna, presently residing at Village- Dharampur, P.S. Gaunaha, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Patna. 3. The Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah. 4. The Additional Collector (Ceiling), West Champaran, Bettiah. 5. The Anchal Adhikari, Mainatand, West Champaran, Bettiah. .... .... Respondents. ******** 3 For the Petitioners: Mr Keshav Srivastava, (in all cases) Sr. Advocate For the Respondents: Ms. Kumari Amrita, G.P.10 & (in all cases) Mr. Ajay, S.C. 11. ******* P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR ******* S.K. Katriar, J. This batch of writ petitions is directed against a common order dated 7.3.2000 (Annexure-9), passed by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, in the following six revision applications, whereby alienations made by the land- holders in favour of different transferees who are the petitioners in five writ petitions, other than CWJC No.6707 of 2009, have been set aside on the ground that those were intended to defeat the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟), and are within the mischief of Section 5(1)(iii) of the Act: (i) Revision Case No.70 of 1997 (Kanak Lata Verma vs. The State of Bihar), giving rise to CWJC No.6707 of 2001. (ii) Revision Case No.71 of 1997 (Indu Sinha vs. The State of Bihar), giving rise to CWJC No.6710 of 2001. (iii) Revision Case No.72 of 1997 (Smt. Asha Sinha vs. The State of Bihar), giving rise to CWJC No.6625 of 2001. (iv) Revision Case No.73 of 1997 (Smt. Asha Lata Sinha vs. The State of Bihar), giving rise to CWJC No.1612 of 2002. (v) Revision Case No.74 of 1997 (Mohini Rai vs. The State of Bihar), giving rise to CWJC No.6532 of 2001. (vi) Revision Case No.42 of 1998 (Raj Mohini Sinha vs. The State of Bihar), giving rise to CWJC No. 6676 of 2001. 2. Before we proceed further, we would like to clarify that C.W.J.C. No.6707 of 2001 had originally been preferred by 4 Smt. Kanak Lata Verma, the land-holder, who died during the pendency of the present proceeding, and has been substituted by her heirs who are now the petitioners before us. 3. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of these writ petitions may be indicated. A brief genealogy of the parties relevant in the present context is reproduced hereinbelow: Pandey Jagarnath Prasad died in 1920s, at the age of 39 Indira Devi died in 1980 | ---------------------------------------------- | | Pandey Brijnandan Pd. Verma Rama Devi died in 1949 wife of late Shambhu Saran Widow Sarju Devi died in 1972 | | | Satish Sharan Shailesh Sharan | Madhuri Sharan Ratan Sharan | | Pandey Jashodanand Prasad Verma died in 1960, at the age of 34 Widow kanak Lata Verma died on 5.9.2006. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Sushil Kumar Verma Madhup Kr. Verma Shushma Verma Punam Verma Shiela Verma Krishnanand Verma | | | ------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | | | | | | | Akanksha Verma Ananya Verma Ananta Verma | Kannika Verma Samarth Verma | --------------------------------- | | Aishwarya Vardhan Verma Janmejay Verma It is evident that Pandey Brijnandan Pd. Verma died in 1949, leaving behind his widow Sarju Devi who died after 9.9.1970, and his son, Pandey Jashodanand Prasad Verma. He died in 1960, leaving behind his widow, Kanak Lata Verma, who died on 5.9.2006, leaving behind her heirs who are now petitioners before us in CWJC No.6707 of 2001. It is thus evident that Sarju Devi and Kanak Lata Verma became land-holders in their own 5 right after demise of their respective husbands. 3.1) Sushil Kumar Verma, a major on 9.9.1970, had alienated certain lands in favour of Upendra Kumar, Narendra Bahadur, and Ravindra Sinha, by separate deeds of absolute sale which were executed on 28.8.1970, and were registered on 29.8.1970. These alienations have been upheld by the learned first authority under the Act and attained finality, no appeal having been filed by anybody with respect to the same. 3.2) Smt Sarju Devi and Smt. Kanak Lata Verma had alienated lands by separate deeds which were executed on 28.8.1970 and 4.9.1970, and were registered on 18.9.1970, by four registered deeds of absolute sale by each (in total eight documents), in favour of the petitioners of the five writ petitions before us, other than CWJC No.6707 of 2001. The learned three authorities under the Act have consistently held that these eight registered documents were executed with the intention to defeat the provisions of the Act, are within the mischief of section 5(1) (iii) of the Act, and impugned herein. All the six writ petitions arise out of a common land ceiling proceeding, have been disposed of by common orders of the learned three authorities under the Act, and are being disposed of by a common judgment of this Court. 4. Land Ceiling proceeding under the Act was started with respect to the lands of Sarju Devi and Kanak Lata Verma 6 which was registered as Land Ceiling Case No.277 of 1976-77. The learned Additional Collector, Bettiah, being the first authority, by his order dated 3.2.1986 (Annexure-1), declared the aforesaid alienations made by Sushil Kumar Verma in favour of Upendra Kumar, Narendra Bahadur, and Ravindra Sinha, valid on the ground that those were bona-fide alienations. This aspect of the matter rested there, and the State of Bihar never challenged the same. He further held that the land-holders were entitled to four units who have felt satisfied with the same and has remained unchallenged. The learned first authority further held that the aforesaid alienations made by Smt. Sarju Devi and Smt. Kanak Lata Verma in favour of the transferees, who are the petitioners in the other five writ petitions before us, were invalid because those were intended to defeat the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved by this part of the order, Smt. Kanak Lata Verma and the petitioners of the other five writ petitions preferred separate appeals, which were dismissed by the learned Collector of the district of West Champaran, Bettiah, by order dated 13.9.1997 (Annexure-2), who upheld the order of the learned first authority. The petitioners preferred separate revision applications before the Board of Revenue, which were dismissed by a common order dated 13.1.1998. 4.1) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred six 7 writ petitions in this Court, namely, CWJC No.5185 of 1998, CWJC No. 10741 of 1997, CWJC No.5238 of 1998, CWJC No.5261 of 1998, CWJC No.5262 of 1998 and CWJC No.6467 of 1998. The same were allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by a common judgment dated 17.9.1998 (Annexure-8), wherein it was held that the authorities had not applied their minds to the grievance of the petitioners as to how and why the alienations made by Smt. Sarju Devi and Smt. Kanak Lata Verma had been declared invalid, when in identical situation the alienations made by Sushil Kumar Verma had been upheld. The learned Single Judge further observed that the learned authorities under the Act had erred in holding that Smt. Sarju Devi and Smt. Kanak Lata Verma had no title to the lands alienated by them in favour of the transferees. He held that, in view of the demise of their respective husbands, they had right, title and interest of the lands they had alienated. The learned authorities had erred by their failure to realize this legal position. The learned Single Judge, therefore, remitted the matter to the Board of Revenue to reconsider the matter after taking into account both the aspects of the matter. 5. The learned Additional Member reconsidered the matter on remand and reiterated his earlier conclusion by a common order and impugned in these writ petitions. Hence these 8 six writ petitions at the instance of the petitioners of the six revision applications before the Board of Revenue. The net result of the impugned order is that the alienations made by Smt. Sarju Devi and Smt. Kanak Lata Verma are invalid. 6. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Member did not fully appreciate the findings and the tenor of the judgment dated 17.9.1998 (Annexure-8), that Smt. Sarju Devi and Smt. Kanak Lata Verma had right, title and interest to make the alienations, and how the alienations by Sushil Kumar Verma stand on a different footing. He next submits that the deeds of absolute sale by the two ladies have undoubtedly been executed prior to 9.9.1970, and were registered just after 9.9.1970. In other words, the learned Additional Member has failed to appreciate that the effect and validity of a registered document date back to the date of execution. He relies on the following reported judgments: (i) Division Bench judgment of this Court in Nanhak Singh vs. The Additional Collector of Bettiah and others [1978 (26) BLJR 375. (ii) Division bench judgment of this Court in Prabhu Narain Singh vs. The State of Bihar (1984 PLJR 842 6.1) He next submits that the learned Additional Member has failed to take into account the relevant factors to consider the validity or otherwise of the alienations within the meaning of section 5(1) (iii) of the Act. He has also failed to take into account 9 the recitals made in the registered documents plus the affidavits placed on record. He has erred in holding that the alienations by the two ladies are invalid because several sale-deeds had been executed and/or registered on the same date, and for the further reason that several deeds had been executed on the same day. He relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Bachchan Singh vs. The S.D.O. & ors. (1977 BBCJ 728). He also submits that the alienations by Sushil Kumar Verma on the one hand, and the alienations by the two ladies, on the other, are identical and on the same footing. He next submits that the learned Additional Member has failed to carry out the remand order on the lines indicated by the learned Single Judge on the previous occasion. He lastly submits that law is well settled that in case of doubt or difficulty with respect to transactions under the Act, the Court shall lean in favour of the land-holder. He relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Haricharan Chamar and others vs. Kapilmuni Ojha and others [2008(2) PLJR 495]. 7. Learned Government Pleader has supported the impugned order. She submits that the learned authorities under the Act have conducted the requisite enquiry in terms of section 5(1) (iii) of the Act. She submits in the same vein that the alienations by the two ladies were intended to defeat the provisions of the Act. 10 She also submits that the onus is on the transferor to prove the bona fides of alienations. She next submits that a large number of alienations on the same day is a circumstance to indicate that those were made to defeat the provisions of the Act. She also submits that the alienations by Sushil Kumar Verma were rightly upheld by the learned authorities under the Act which stand on a different footing. She lastly submits that the issues are concluded by findings of facts and may not be reopened by this Court in writ jurisdiction. 8. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is evident that the land-holders are not aggrieved by the number of units allotted to them which indeed rested with the order of the learned first authority. It is equally evident that the alienations made by Sushil Kumar Verma were upheld by the learned first authority. The State of Bihar did not challenge the same and attained finality. These two issues, therefore, do not arise for our consideration. 9. The only question which arises for our consideration is whether or not the alienations by Smt. Sarju Devi and Smt. Kanak Lata Verma, the sale-deeds of which were executed prior to 9.9.1970, and were registered just after 9.9.1970, were valid alienations, or were meant to defeat the aims and objects of the 11 Act. The most important aspect of the matter which comes to our mind is that Sushil Kumar Verma had made identical alienations by separate documents executed on 28.8.1970, which were registered on 29.8.1970. The same have been upheld and declared to be bonafide and valid alienations consistently by the three learned authorities. We do not see any significant difference between the alienations of Sushil Kumar Verma on the one hand, and those of Smt. Sarju Devi and Smt. Kanak Lata Verma, on the other, except that the latter deeds of absolute sale were executed before 9.9.1970, and registered just after 9.9.1970. 10. Section 5(1) (i) of the Act lays down to the effect that it shall not be lawful for any family to hold, except otherwise provided under this Act, land in excess of the ceiling area. Section 5(1) (iii) lays down to the effect that Collector shall have power to make enquiries in respect of any transfer of land by a land-holder whether by a registered instrument or otherwise made after 22.10.1959, whether or not it has been done to defeat the aims and objects of the case. The relevant portion of Section 5 of the Act is reproduced hereinbelow: “5. No person to hold land in excess of the ceiling area. - (1) (i) It shall not be lawful for any family to hold, except otherwise provided under this Act, land in excess of the ceiling area. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 12 (iii) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or authority the Collector shall have power to make enquiries in respect of any transfer of land by a land-holder whether by a registered instrument or otherwise made after the 22nd day of October, 1959, and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made with the object of defeating, or in contravention of the provisions of this Act or for retaining, benami or farzi land in excess of the ceiling area, the Collector may after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard, annul such transfer and thereupon the land shall be deemed to be held by the transferor for the purposes of determining the ceiling area he may hold under this section.” 11. The scope of section 5(1) (iii) of the Act has been the subject-matter of discussion in various judgments of this Court. It has been held that all alienations prior to 22.10.1959, have got to be accepted on its face value and cannot be subjected to any enquiry. As to the alienations made between 22.10.1959 and 9.9.1970, it has been held that it will be open to the authorities to examine the validity of such alienations to satisfy themselves whether or not the same were bonafide transactions, or were intended to defeat the aims and objects of the Act. Such alienations are not Per Se invalid. The alienations after 9.9.1970 are Per Se bad in law and no enquiry is needed. 12. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Nanhak Singh Vs. The Additional Collector of Bettiah (supra), that although registration may have taken place after 9.9.1970, if 13 execution of the documents have been taken place prior to that date then, in view of the provisions of section 47 of the Indian Registration Act, title passes from the date of execution. It was, therefore, held that it was not open to the authorities under the Act to annul the documents on the ground that, though the documents had been executed prior to 9.9.1970, but the same had been registered thereafter. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the judgment are reproduced hereinbelow: “2. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in all the four cases the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners have been executed before the 9th September, 1970, although they have been registered on the 27th November, 1970. On registration, it was contended that the title passed from the date of execution, which in all the cases is prior to the 9th of September 1970. Learned counsel further pointed out that the only reason given by the learned Additional Member Board of Revenue for ignoring these transfers is that the transfer have been registered after the 9th of September, 1970 without obtaining the prior permission of the Collector. Learned counsel contended that although the registration taken place after the 9th September, 1970 but since the execution was before that date, in view of the provisions of section 47 of the Indian Registration Act the title passes from the date of the execution. Reference in this connection was made to the decisions in the cases of Faiya-Uddin Khan v. Mst. Zahur Bibi (AIR 1930 Pat. 134), Chanier Singh v. Jamuna Prasad Singh (AIR 1958 Pat. 195), Smt. Sudama Devi v. Rajendr Singh (AIR 1973 Pat. 199), and M/s. Purtahpore Co. v. State of Bihar (AIR 1977 Pat. 283). In our view, the learned counsel is correct in so far as this part of argument is concerned. If it is accepted that the execution was before the 9th of September 1970, as is the 14 petitioners‟ case, than since the title passes from the date of execution, as held in all these cases, the authorities under the said Act are not entitled to ignore these transfers or annul them on the ground the transferees had taken place after the relevant date, namely, the 9th of September, 1970.” (Emphasis added) 13. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Prabhu Narain Singh vs. The State of Bihar (supra) that, in view of the provisions of section 47 of the Indian Registration Act, title passes with effect from the date of the execution of the sale-deed. Paragraph 4 of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: “It is well known that in view of section 47 of the Indian Registration Act, title passes with effect from the date of the execution of the sale deed. Reference in this connection may be made to Faiya-uddin Khan v. Mt. Jahur Bibi (A.I.R. 1930 Patna 134), Chander Singh v. Jamuna Prasad Singh (A.I.R. 1958 Patna 195), Smt. Sudama Devi v. Rajendra Singh (A.I.R. 1973 Patna 199)(:1973 P.L.J.R. 534), and M/s Purtabpur Company v. State of Bihar (A.I.R. 1977 Patna 283) (: 1978 P.L.J.R. 130). A Bench of this Court has considered this aspect of the matter in the case of Nanhak Singh vs. The Additional Collector, Bettiah (1978 B.B.C.J. 398) (: 1978 PLJR 478) in connection with section 5(iii) of the Act. 14. In exercise of the power under section 5(1) (iii) of the Act, the authorities conducted enquiry and have consistently found that all the alienations had been made by registered documents, and were executed prior to 9.9.1970. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that right, title and interest of 15 the lands alienated by Smt. Sarju Devi and Smt. Kanak Lata Verma had validly passed on to the transferees well before 9.9.1970. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through photo copies of all the registered documents executed by the two ladies which are on record. Photo copies of the registered documents executed by Smt. Sarju Devi on 28.8.1970, are marked Annexure-3 series, and photo copies those executed by Smt. Kanak Lata Verma on 4.9.1970, are marked Annexure-4 series. The recitals of each and every document state that the alienations were being made for education of the children of the family, construction and repair of their houses, and such other expenses. The respondent authorities failed to realize that Brijnandan Prasad Verma died in 1949, leaving behind his widow (Smt. Sarju Devi) who died in 1972, giving her widowhood of 23 years. Jashodanand Prasad Verma died way back in 1960, leaving behind his widow (Smt. Kanak Lata Verma), who died on 5.9.2006, giving her widowhood of 46 years. In other words, both Brijnandan Prasad Verma and Jashodanand Prasad Verma died very pre-mature death, leaving behind the family high and dry in life. One can well imagine the struggle and the responsibility on the two widows, particularly after 1960, to keep their family going. Failure to countenance the same will result in gross miscarriage of justice. In 16 such a situation, we are clearly of the view that the alienations made by the two widows to maintain the family and for the purposes stated in the deeds were undoubtedly bona fide alienations for pressing legal necessity. Any other view will be absolutely heartless, unrealistic, and inequitable, and any other mode and manner of dispensation of justice cannot be upheld by this Court, an aspect of the matter completely overlooked by the learned authorities. Indeed none of