UMESH PD SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE Annexure -1 dated 14.9.1989 in exercise of power under Section 32 of the Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 a sale deed executed by one Ram Sakhi Devi was held to be void and a fine of rupees fifty was imposed for violating Section 5 of the Consolidation Act because the Collector came to a considered opinion that the transfer was in breach of the law as no permission was obtained from the Consolidation Officer.

(2.) BRIEF facts are that original respondent No. 3 late Ram Sakhi Devi executed a sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner way back on 1.3.1973. Petitioner came in possession of the said land. On 20.9.1974 the land register of the village in question was published but there was large number of errors which were pointed out by the villagers. On a Village Advisory Committee decision dated 12.8.1981 a decision was taken to cancel the consolidation scheme of the village and order for publication was made. In exercise of power under Section 12B(1) the Consolidation Officer agreed to cancel the consolidation scheme of the village and recommendation was made to the Deputy Director, Consolidation for republication of the scheme under Section 10D of the Act. In view of the incongruity having been found in the publication the Consolidation Officer ordered for republication of register of lands and statement of principles which was finally done on 15.11.1981 and 17.11.1981 respectively.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 4 Raj Mohan Singh after almost 15 years of the existence of the necessary entry having been made in the register, filed an application namely Case No. 107 of 1987 -88 before the learned Collector for declaring the sale deed dated 1.3.1973 as void. The application was entertained by the Collector and without appreciating the facts and the background with regard to the time -frame when the, sale deed was executed as well as the register of land and statement of principle held the said transfer to be bad and also imposed a fine. The petitioner challenges the order contained in annexure -9 in this background.