PANNA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Expressing doubt as regards the correctness of the decision in Ram Raji Sharma v. The State of Bihar, 2007 (4) PLJR 449 wherein a Division Bench has interpreted Section 32 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (for brevity 'the Act'), the Division Bench thought it apposite to refer it to a larger Bench for consideration of the law laid down there and, accordingly, the matter has been placed before us.

(2.) Sans unnecessary details, the facts which are requisite to be exposited for dealing with the controversy in issue which relates to correctness of the decision rendered in Ram Raji Sharma (supra) are that the writ petitioner purchased land admeasuring 621/2 decimals of land appertaining to Khata No. 180, Plot No. 766 in Village-Amarpur, District-Buxar through two sale deeds executed by the grandfather of the respondent No. 6. The 6th respondent to the writ petition after 23 years of the execution of the sale-deed filed an application before the Collector, Buxar praying therein for declaring the sale deed dated 1-8-1983 void as the said transaction had taken place without the permission of the competent authority under the Act. The appellant-petitioner filed an objection to the said application contending, inter alia, that the sale deeds were genuine and valid. The Collector, as set forth, without noticing the vendor passed an order declaring the sale- deeds void and imposed a penalty of Rs. 250/-. It was urged before the Collector that the sale- deeds could not have been declared void as the consolidation proceeds were over on 30th March, 1981 and further the transaction was not done to frustrate the purpose of the Act. The Collector passed the said order under Section 32 of the Act. Various other aspects were pleaded as to how the sale deeds could not be declared void. The Collector negatived the contentions and, by order dated 22-7- 2009 passed in Misc. Case No. 56/2006, declared the sale-deeds void and imposed penalty of Rs. 250/-.

(3.) Being dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner preferred C.W.J.C. No. 14710 of 2009. The learned single Judge by order dated 6-11-2009 referred to the order dated 27-10-2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14038 of 2009 and declined to interfere. The learned counsel for the parties have brought to our notice the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14038 of 2009 on the basis of which the present order has been passed. The learned single Judge, as is manifest from the order, after referring to the provisions contained in Section 32 of the Act and placing reliance on the decision rendered in Ram Prakash Mahto v. State of Bihar, 1989 BLJ 100: (2001 Cri LJ (NOC) 142 (Pat), came to hold that the order passed by the Collector was impregnable and he was right in declaring the sale-deeds void and imposing the fine.