IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2396 of 1992 Bibi Madina Khatun wife of Mozami Hussain Resident of Village- Larui Hussainabad P.S. Rajapakar Distt-Vaishali. ----- Petitioner. Versus 1. The Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur. 2. Md. Neyajuddin son of Md. Hussain. 3. Bibi Mashudan Khatun wife of Abdul Razak, Both resident of Village Kila Larui P.S. Rajapakar Distt- Vaishali ----- Respondents. ------------ 6. 13.1.2010 Heard Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, and Mr. Rana Ishwar Chandra, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader No.13. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.2.1991, passed by the learned Collector of the district Vaishali in R. Case No. 60 of 1991-92 (Md. Neyajuddin Versus Bibi Mashudan Khatoon), passed in purported exercise of power under section 32 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that respondent no.3 herein had executed a registered deed of gift dated 1.4.1985, in favour of the present petitioner. Some time in the year 1991, respondent no.2 filed an application under section 32 of the Act that transfer of the land by the aforesaid registered deed of gift without prior permission, as contemplated by section 5 of the Act, was void. The learned Collector allowed the application and declared the registered deed of gift as void. It appears to us that respondent no.3 is the mother of the petitioner. Secondly, respondent no.2 appears to be a stranger and his cause of action to maintain application under section 32 of 2 the Act is discernible. Thirdly, respondent no.2 had filed an application under section 32 of the Act after lapse of six years. We do not wish to express ourselves on the question whether or not formal period of limitation was prescribed in the present case. Even if formal period were not prescribed, yet respondent no.2 was obliged to explain the delay in approaching the learned authority under section 32 of the Act, failing which the application should not have been entertained. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.2.1991, is hereby set aside. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)