IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.444 of 2007 Ram Kali Devi, wife of Ram Sagar Sah, resident of village- Malti Badolia, P.S. Ujiarpur, District- Samastipur. ..... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reform, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Collector, Samastipur. 3. The Deputy Director, Consolidation, Samastipur. 4. Consolidation Officer, Ujiarpur, District- Samastipur. 5. Ram Bilash Sah. 6. Anandi Sah. Both are sons of Late Ram Uchit Sah, resident of Village- Malti, P.S.- Ujiarpur, District- Samastipur. ..... Respondents. ----------- 02- 9.1.2009 Heard Mr. Amitabh Bhardwaj for the petitioner, and Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned junior counsel to Standing Counsel No.7. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.7.2006 (Annexure-7), passed by the learned Collector of the district of Samastipur, in Case No.152 of 1996 (Ram Bilas Sah and others Vs. Ram Kali Devi), whereby the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner has been declared to be invalid, being in violation of Section-5 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). 2 2. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Raji Sharma and another Vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2007(4) P.L.J.R. 449, paragraph 5 of which is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: “5. The writ court held that since the subject transfer was without permission, which required permission, and since any transfer without permission is void in view of Section 32 of the Act, the transfer was void. Section 32 of the Act provides that transfer of any land or a fragment thereof contrary to the provisions of the Act shall be void provided the owner of any land, so transferred, shall be liable to pay such fine, not exceeding two hundred fifty rupees as the Collector of the District may, subject to the general orders of the State Government, direct. Section 32, therefore, provides that a transfer made in contravention of Section 5 of the Act will be void and the owner of the land shall be liable to pay a fine not exceeding two hundred fifty rupees. Section 32, therefore, makes it abundantly clear that the transfer declared to be void thereby is in relation to consolidation proceedings. Section 32 is in aid of completion of consolidation proceedings. In such view of the matter, transfer of any land contrary to Section 5 of the Act would make the same void in so far as consolidation proceedings are concerned and not inter se the person who has transferred the same 3 and his transferee. In other words, such a transfer if effected pursuant to the provisions contained in the Transfer of Property Act read with Registration Act the same would though bind the parties thereto but would not bind the Consolidation Authority. In addition thereto the Consolidation Authority has been empowered to levy fine upon the person who has effected the transfer in question.” 3. It appears to me that the present proceeding arises out of consolidation proceedings and, therefore, the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner is hit by Section-5 of the Act. In so far as the observations in Ram Raji Sharma Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (Supra) are concerned, the petitioner cannot get the declaration as to the binding character of the registered document between the petitioner and her vendor in a collateral proceeding like the present one. It will be open to the petitioner to rely on the observations made in the aforesaid judgment in appropriate proceedings, if the occasion arises. 4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 4