CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6978 OF 1994 --- In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. --- 1. SMT.JANKI DEVI WIFE OF NAWAL KISHORE ROY 2. ANIL KISHORE ROY, SON OF NAWAL KISHORE ROY, BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-HARPUR PURA, P.S. AND ANCHAL- PUSA,DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. Appellants. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, SAMASTIPUR 3. SANJIV KUMAR 4. SISHIR KUMAR 5. SUJIT KUMAR 6. ASHUTOSH KUMAR 7. SUDHAKAR ALIAS MUNNA, ALL SONS OF NAWAL KISHORE ROY 8. NAWAL KISHORE ROY SON OF LATE BANKEY ROY, ALL RESIDNT OF VILLAGE- HARPUR PUSA, P.S.AND ANCHAL, PUSA, DISTRICT-SAMASSTIPUR- RESPONDENTS. For The Petitioner : Mr. Keshav Srivastava Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad,Advocate For The Respondent No.8: Mr. Srinandan Prasad Singh Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashok Kumar No.1,Advocate For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha G.A. with Mr. U.B.Singh, J.C. to G.A.2 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN Navin Sinha & Jyoti Saran,JJ. The writ application questions the order dated 12.4.1994 passed by the Collector, Samastipur in Case No.95 of 1992 filed under Section 32 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation 2 Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as „the Consolidation Act‟). By the impugned order sale deed executed in favour of petitioner no.1 has been cancelled as being contrary to Section 5 of the Consolidation Act and a fine of Rs.250/- has been imposed upon her. In this writ application, the challenge is confined to the imposition of penalty of Rs.250/- upon petitioner no.1, as the transferee of the land. In the limited nature of the controversy raised before us, we do not consider it necessary to discuss the facts of the case except to the extent necessary. The father-in-law of petitioner no.1, Late Bankey Roy executed a sale deed dated 13.9.1977 in favour of his daughter-in-law, petitioner no.1 in respect of certain lands. Respondent no.8 the husband of petitioner no.1 had remarried and his son from the second marriage, respondent no.3 questioned the execution of the sale deed by an application under Section 32 of the Consolidation Act, filing Case No.95 of 1992 on the ground that the consolidation proceedings having commenced before sale the requisite permission under Section 5 of the Consolidation Act, had not been obtained before execution of the sale deed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the liability for the penalty lay on the owner of the 3 land who had executed the transfer deed contrary to law which was void and conveys no title to the transferee. The present writ application was admitted on 28.11.1995 noticing a Bench decision of this Court in C.W.J.C.No.6979 of 1994 disposed on 20.7.1995 interpreting Section 32 of the Consolidation Act to hold that such penalty could be imposed only on the vendor who executed the sale deed without permission of the Consolidation Officer. Doubting the earlier interpretation that “owner of any land” could be restricted to the land owner/vendor only, the matter was referred for consideration by a Division Bench. Sections 5 and 32 of the Consolidation Act read as follows: Section 5.- “No transfer without sanction-(1) After the date of publication of preparation of register of lands and statement of principles under sub- section (1) of section 10 no person shall transfer any land in the notified area by way of sale, gift, exchange, or partition without the previous sanction of the Consolidation Officer and if the sanction is granted, such transfer or partition, as the case may be shall be, subject to the rights and liabilities attached to the land under the scheme of consolidation prepared with respect to that area. (2) The provision of sub-section (1) shall take effect from the date of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3 has been issued.” Section 32. “Transfer of lands prohibited.- The transfer of any land or fragment contrary to the provisions of this act shall be void; and the owner of any 4 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 a bare perusal of the statutory provisions, it is apparent that the restraint on transfer is against the land owner. Any transfer of the land contrary to the provisions of the Act by the land owner was void. The interdict of the statute is against the land owner who transfers restraining him from doing so. If transfer was void, it is the land owner who had no authority to transfer the land. The wrongful act is on part of the transferor land owner. The words “owner of any land” has to be read in that context of the lawful authority of the person making the transfer. To hold by any other interpretation to impose liability on the transferee shall only amount to giving an advantage to the transferor for having executed a sale deed contrary to the law when the consequences will be visited upon the person purchasing the same who may have been an innocent purchaser. This view is further fortified by the use of words “so transferred” upon whom the liability to pay such fine is imposed. To read the words “so transferred” in isolation and hold that it shall take within its ambit the transferee of the land also, shall be in violation of the statutory provisions reading both 5 sections together restraining the owner from effecting any transfer. The language of the Statute being clear, there is no occasion for us to indulge in semantics and to make any other interpretation of the statutory provisions. Learned counsel for respondent no.8 has therefore very rightly and fairly submitted that he finds it difficult to oppose the statutory interpretation discussed by us upon Sections 5 and 32 of the Consolidation Act. The order impugned dated 12.4.1994 passed by the Collector, Samastipur in Case No.95 of 1992 in so far as imposition of fine of Rs.250/- upon petitioner no.1 is concerned, is not sustainable and is set aside to that extent only. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. (Navin Sinha,J.) (Jyoti Saran,J.) Patna High Court, Dated, 14th July, 2010, NAFR/ ahk.