IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8546 of 2002 1. SARDA DEVI WIFE OF NIRANJAN SINGH 2. JAI PRAKASH 3. CHANDRA SHEKHAR BOTH SONS OF NIRANJAN SINGH, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHAGWATPUR PATEDHA, POLICE STATION SARAI, DISTRICT - VAISHALI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR RESPONDENT IST SET 3. GANESH PANDEY SON OF NAWAL KISHORE PANDEY (VENDEE) RESPONDENT 2ND SET 4. NIRANJAN SINGH SON OF LATE SANT LAL SINGH (VENDOR) RESPONDENT 3RD SET BOTH RESPONDENT NOS. 3 AND 4 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHAGWATPUR PATEDHA, POLICE STATION SARAI, DISTRICT - VAISHALI ----------- 4. 24.04.2009 The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 11.06.2002 passed by the respondent no. 2 as contained in Annexure-2 whereby a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 32 of Bihar Consolidation of Holdings (Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was rejected. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 4, who happens to be the husband of the petitioner no. 1 and father of the petitioner nos. 2 and 3, executed the registered sale deed dated 10.05.1984 in favour of - 2 - Respondent no. 3 in respect of a piece of land measuring an area of 0.51 acres situated at Village Aktiyarpur Paterha appertaining to Revenue Thana No. 319, Khata No. 262 and Survey Plot No. 306 in the district of Vaishali without obtaining the requisite permission in terms of Sub Section 1 of Section 5 of the aforesaid Act. Therefore, and as such, the same being contrary to the above provisions of law, the respondent no. 2 ought to have held that the transfer of land under the aforesaid sale deed is void and fine was liable to be imposed on respondent no. 4 as provided under Section 32 of the Act. The respondent no. 3 pursuant to the notice issued by this court entered appearance through Vakalatnama. However, nobody appeared in the case on being called out for hearing. The respondent no. 4 has not appeared despite service of notice. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the operation of Sub-Section 1 of Section 5 of the aforesaid Act becomes operative on issuance of notification under Sub section 1 of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act as per the provisions of Sub Section 2 of Section 5 of the Act. It is further submitted that any transfer of land after publication of preparation of registered of land and the statements of principle under Sub Section 1 of Section 10 of the Act without obtaining - 3 - permission of the concerned Consolidation Officer, is void in law and the Collector of the District on finding that the transfer is void is further empowered to impose fine. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 2 while hearing the application filed by the petitioner called for a report with regard to the preparation of the registered of land and the statement of principles published under Sub Section 1 of Section 10 of the Act from the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Vaishali who as per its letter no. 413 dated 18.12.1998, submitted the report that the sale deed in question executed on 10.05.1994 required prior permission of the Consolidation Officer vide Annexure-1 of the application. In the above circumstances, learned counsel submits that the impunged order rejecting the application deserves to be quashed. On hearing the submission of the petitioner and the counsel for the State, it appears that the respondent no. 2 heard the application filed by the petitioner and upon considering the report submitted by the Deputy Director, Consolidation as contained in Annexure-1, the respondent no. 2, the collector of the District found that the report mentions regarding the publication of register of land, however, did not confirm the publication of - 4 - statement of principles as required under Section 9A of the Act. As notice above that the permission is required for any transfer effected after publication of the registered of land and statement of principles under Section 9 and 9(A) of the aforesaid Act respectively. Accordingly, the respondent no. 2 having found that no publication of statement of principles was published accordingly, held that no permission was required before transfer of the land through the sale deed in question, consequently the application filed by the petitioner was rejected. In my opinion, the respondent no. 2, on getting the matter enquired and found as per the report of the Deputy Director, Consolidation as contained in Annexure-1, that the statement of principles under Section 9(A) of the Act was not published, held that the permission for transferring the land was not required. Nothing has been brought on the record to show that the statement of principle was published before the transfer of land in question. In that view of the matter, the impunged order passed by the respondent no. 2 cannot be faulted. This being the position, I do not find any merit in this writ application, accordingly, it is dismissed. Jagdish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J)