IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1542 of 2009 BHARAT SINGH, SON OF SITA RAM SINGH., RESIDENT OF VILLAGE.- AMARPUR, P.S.- DHANSOI, DISTRICT- BUXAR. …..PETITIONER-APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, BUXAR. 4. THE DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE CONSOLIDATION OFFICER, RAJPUR 6. BINOD KUMAR ROY S/O PARASH NATH ROY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- AMARPUR, P.S.- DHANSOI, DISTT.- BUXAR. ….RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENT. ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sumant Kumar Singh, No.1 to 5 AC to Government Pleader XVII. ------ P R E S E N T: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA O R D E R ( 14.05.2010) As per Dipak Misra, C.J. In this intra-court appeal, the assail is to the order dated 27.10.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No.14038 of 2009. The appellant - writ petitioner visited this court for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 22.07.2009, as contained in Annexure-1, passed by the Collector, Buxar, whereunder the sale deed executed in his favour had been held - 2 - to be void as the same was executed without obtaining permission from the Consolidation Officer of the area concerned, although a notification under Section 10(1) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (for brevity, „the Act‟) was issued and notification denotifying the area under Section 26A of the Act was not published. The Collector confirmed the said fact from the Consolidation Officer under report dated 25.11.2006 and passed the order imposing fine of Rs.250/- on the petitioner vendee, owner of the lands transferred. 2. It was contended before the learned single Judge that the order passed by the Collector was indefensible and the learned single Judge adverted to the facts and came to hold that in the absence of permission taken from the Consolidation Officer, the sale deed was void. The learned single Judge expressed the view in the following terms:- “The provisions contained in Section 32 of the Act is absolutely clear as it prohibits transfer contrary to the provisions of the Act and in the present case the impugned transfer was made after publication of the notification under Section 10(1) of the Act and before publishing the notification closing the consolidation proceeding in the area under Section 26A of the Act. In the circumstances, in my opinion, the Collector, Buxar was right in imposing fine on the vendee who was the owner of the land so transferred after the execution and registration of the sale deed. I do not see any illegality in the order.” - 3 - 3. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Sumant Kumar Singh, learned Assistant counsel to learned Government Pleader-XVII. 4. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the consolidation authority could not have declared the sale deed void in view of the decision in Ram Raji Sharma & Anr. V. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2007(4) PLJR 449. 5. At this juncture, we may note with profit that a full bench of this court in Panna Devi Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, L.P.A.No.375 of 2010 decided on 11.05.2010 has held as follows: “20. As is evincible from the decision, the Division Bench has held that it would be void with regard to the consolidation proceedings and not transaction inter se parties. The said conclusion does not take note of the provision contained in Section 39 of the Act which clearly provides that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force and, that apart, the Bench has attached a degree to the term „void‟ which is not permissible in law. As has been discussed hereinabove, the language of the statute is absolutely clear and as the term „void‟ has been used, no transaction can take place without prior sanction. The command in the statute is imperative and categorical. Nothing can be read into it to mean that it is qua consolidation proceeding under the scheme and would bind the parties thereto. The same would be totally in transgression to the language employed and would defeat the object of the Act and runs contrary to the intendment of the Legislature.” - 4 - 6. In view of the aforesaid, the reliance placed on the decision in Ram Raji Sharma & Anr. (supra) has become inconsequential and, accordingly, the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge has to be treated as impeccable. 7. Resultantly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed without any order as to costs. ( Dipak Misra, C.J.) ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Patna High Court. Dated the 14th May, 2010. N.A.F.R. Sunil/