IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.717 of 2009 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 2794/1991) Chandra Shekhar Rai, Son of Surendra Rai, Resident of village- Maudah Dih, P.S.- Patepur, District- Vaishali ….. Respondent/Appellant Versus 01. The Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur 02. The Consolidation Officer, Patepur, District-Vaishali ….. Respondents-Respondents 03. Laxmi Narain Singh 04. Surendra Singh Both sons of Jai Dayal Singh, resident of village-Maudah Dih, P.S.- Patepur, District-Vaishali ….. Petitioners-Respondents For the Appellant:- Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma & Mr. Arun Kr. Lal For the State:- Mr. P.K. Verma, AC to SC-26 For Respondent 4:- Mr. Shrinandan Pd. Singh & Mr. Ashok Kumar For Respondent 5:- Mr. Laxmikant Tiwary, Advocate ---------------------------------- 11. 09.08.2011 This is a case where the dispute arose with regard to availability of publication purported to be under Section 10 (1) of the Bihar Consolidation Act which requires that the registers prepared under Sub-Section 2 of Section 9 and the statement of Principal prepared under Section 9(1) of the Act shall be published in the manner prescribed and shall remain published not less than 30 weeks as transfer of land has been made by a deed of gift executed by the mother of the appellant in favour of the third person and the subsequent endorsement of the 2 Collector on the condition of imposing fine of Rs.250/- on the vendors of the Appellant has been questioned by the purchaser in the writ petition. The same was quashed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that there was no clear evidence with regard to publication of land registered, hence statement of the Principal has already been made as required under Section 5 of the Act. Aggrieved by such quashing of Annexure-5 the present Appeal has been preferred by the son of the executor of the gift namely Banarsi Devi. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also has submitted a copy of the publication purported to be one under Section 10 (1) of the Act and it has been fairly submitted that the same was not produced before the learned Single Judge. In view of above, copy of publication being produced before this Court, we are of the opinion that the matter can be remanded to the Collector, Vaishali at Hazipur to look into the matter afresh with reference to the original records. We also make it clear that the publication is available on the records, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants. We are of the opinion that the Collector 3 must pass fresh order after hearing all the parties concerned in accordance with law. In absence of any publication under Section 10 (1) of the Act, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.12.2001 becomes operative. The entire exercise must be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. With the above observation this L.P.A. is disposed of. P.K. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)