NANHAK SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act was started against Narayan Bikram Shah who is now dead. In that proceeding notices were issued to number of transferees from him and other members of his family. These for petitioners are on behalf of the transferees whose transfers have been annulled under the provisions of Section 5(i)(iii) of the Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in all the four cases the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners have been executed before the 9th September, 1970, although they have been registered on the 27th November, 1970. On registration, it was contended that the title passed from the date of execution, which in all the cases is prior to the 9th of September 1970. Learned counsel further pointed out that the only reason given by the learned Additional Member Board of Revenue for ignoring these transfers is that the transfer have been registered after the 9th of September, 1970 without obtaining the prior permission of the Collector. Learned counsel contended that although the registration taken place after the 9th September, 1970 but since the execution was before that date, in view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act the title passes from the date of the execution. Reference in this connection was made to the decisions in the cases of Faiya-Uddin Khan v. Mst. Zahur Bibi A.I.R. 1930 Pat. 134, Chanier Singh v. Jamuna Prasad Singh A.I.R. 1958 Pat. 195, Smt. Sudama Devi v. Rajendr Singh , and Purtahpore Co. v. State of Bihar . In our view of the learned Counsel is correct in so far as this part of argument is concerned. If it is accepted that the execution was before the 9th of September 1970 as is the petitioners' case, than since the title passes from the date of execution, as held in all these cases, the authorities under the said Act are not entitled to ignore these transfers pr annul them on the ground the transferee had taken place after the relevant date, namely, the 9th of September, 1970.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in all the four cases also pointed out that the learned Additional Collector while disposing of the proceeding, had observed that the transfer in favour of the, petitioner was genuine and valid. Reference in this connection was made to the observation of the learned Additional Collector which is to the following effect: