IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13691 of 2000 Sheela Devi, wife of Sunil Rai, resident of village- Rampur Kichni, Police Station- Desari, District- Vaishali. ..... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Nagina Rai, son of late Dangal Rai, resident of village- Rampur Kichni, Police Station- Desari, District- Vaishali at Hajipur. 3. The Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur. 4. The Deputy Director, Consolidation, Vaishali at Hajipur. ..... Respondents. -------- 07- 20.10.2008 Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar for the petitioner, and Mr. Roy Shivaji Nath, learned Additional Advocate General No.4 for respondent nos.1, 3 and 4. None appears on behalf of respondent no.2 in spite of valid service of notice. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.12.2000 (Annexure-4), passed by the learned Collector of the district of Vaishali, in Miscellaneous Case No. 232 of 1997-98 (Sheela Devi Vs. Nagina Rai), whereby he has declined to review the order dated 26.5.1997/8.7.1997 (Annexure-3), passed in Revenue Case No.134/1996-97 (Nagina Rai and others Vs. Bashishth Rai and others). It arises out of a proceeding under section 32 read with Section 5 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings 2 (and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Áct’). 3. The petitioner purchased the following lands by a registered deed of absolute sale dated 31.3.1995, from one Bashishtha Rai (since deceased): R.S.Khata R.S.P. S.N. Chak No. Area 76 165 104 280 41/4 dec. (181/2 dhurs) This was followed by an application at the instance of respondent no.2 herein under Section 5 of the Act, praying therein that the said sale deed may be cancelled because it was executed and registered without obtaining prior permission of the prescribed authority, a copy whereof is marked Annexure-1 to this writ petition. The same was registered as Revenue Case No.134 of 1996-97 (Nageena Rai Vs. Basisth Rai & Another). The petitioner herein had submitted objection to the same, wherein he, inter alia, took the stand that the statement of principles had not been published by the concerned authorities under the provisions of the Act. In his submission, a deed becomes invalid in terms of Section 5 of the Act only after register of lands and the statement of principles are 3 published. In his submission, the register of land had been published but the statement of principles had not been published. In view of the stand taken by the petitioner the learned Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur, had elicited information from the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Vaishali at Hajipur, to provide the requisite information. The Deputy Director submitted his reply dated 6.11.1996 (Annexure-2), wherein he stated that the register of lands had been published on 30.4.1973, but copies of statement of principles, and kind and quality of lands, were not available on record. On a consideration of the materials on record, the learned Collector by his said order dated 26.5.1997/8.7.1997 (Annexure-3), held that it would be inappropriate to impose fine in terms of section 32 of the Act because the vendor was already dead, “ij nLrkost Lor% j| gS“. This was followed by the review application at the instance of the present petitioner which was rejected by the impugned order. Hence this writ petition. 4 We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that 4 without any discussion of the relevant aspects of the matter, namely, whether or not the pre- conditions envisaged by section 5 of the Act were satisfied, he has held that “ij nLrkost Lor% j| gS“. There is no material on record to suggest that statement of principles under the provisions of the Act had been published to give jurisdiction to the Collector of the district to cancel the deed. He has not at all discussed the issue as to how the deed automatically stands dismissed. If this were permitted, every deed would automatically stands cancelled, the moment an application under section 5 of the Act is filed. It is elementary to state that it needs application of the judicial mind and adjudication whether or not such a transfer of lands falls foul of section 5 of the Act. A declaration of the competent authority is imperative and cannot be automatic. No material has been brought to my notice that the statement of principles had been published. On the contrary, the communication dated 6.11.1996 (Annexure-2), from the Deputy Director to the Collector has not at all been noticed by the learned Collector, and he has passed a perverse order. 5 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ramjanam Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2002(1) B.L.J. 240, paragraph-9 of which is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: “9. As stated above in the absence of any plea and evidence to the contrary, the Court has to proceed on the basis of the dates mentioned in the Deputy Director’s report and as such statement of principles having been published later than the date of gift and the bar of Section 5 was not applicable, and therefore the gift could not be void under Section 32 read with Section 5 of the Act. The order of the learned Single judge therefore, cannot be said to be in accordance with law.” 6. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the following orders are hereby set aside: (i) Order dated 26.5.1997/8.7.1997 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned Collector of the district of Vaishali, in Revenue Case No.134 of 1996-97; and (ii) The order dated 4.12.2000 (Annexure- 4), passed by the learned Collector of the district of Vaishali, in Misc. Case No.232 of 1997-98. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 6