BHARAT SINGH SON OF SITARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the order dated 22.7.2009, Annexure -4 passed by the Collector, Buxar, whereunder sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner has been held to be void as the same was executed without obtaining permission from the Consolidation Officer of the area concerned, although, notification under Section 10(1) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was issued and notification denotifying the area under Section 26A of the Act was not published. The Collector having confirmed the said fact from the Consolidation Officer under report dated 25.11.2006 passed the impugned order imposing fine of Rs. 250/ - on the petitioner vendee, owner of the lands transferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the provisions contained in Section 32 of the Act submitted that it is the owner of the land on the date of transfer is liable to be fined and not the vendee and the owner of the land so transferred. In support of such submission learned counsel further relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Prakash Mahto V/s. State of Bihar and Others, reported in 1989 BLJ 100. Close perusal of the said judgment, however, indicates a different story, this Court having considered the facts of the said case found that on the date of execution of the sale deed i.e. 12.6.1978 no notification in terms of Section 10(1) of the Act was issued and in appreciation of such fact the order imposing fine was quashed. Such is not the case in hand as the sale deed was executed on 7.5.1990, much after issue of the notification under Section 10(1) of the Act on 26.10.1970 and publication of the register of lands on 25.8.1975. In the circumstances, the parties to the sale deed were required to have taken permission from the Consolidation authorities for transfer of lands even though the village was confirmed under Section 13(1) of the Act on 30.3.1991 as till the date of execution of the sale deed on 7.5.1990 notification under Section 26A of the Act closing the consolidation proceeding in the area was not issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to wriggle out of the situation with reference to the submission that the village having already been confirmed before the execution of the sale deed, the purpose behind the Consolidation operation was already achieved, as such, considering such fact the Collector, Buxar ought not to have imposed any fine in the matter.

(3.) I regret not to accept such submission. The provisions contained in Section 32 of the Act is absolutely clear as it prohibits transfer contrary to the provisions of the Act and in the present case the impugned transfer was made after publication of the notification under Section 10(1) of the Act and before publishing the notification closing the consolidation proceeding in the area under Section 26A of the Act. In the circumstances, in my opinion, the Collector, Buxar was right in imposing fine on the vendee who was the owner of the land so transferred after the execution and registration of the sale deed. I do not see any illegality in the order. The writ application is dismissed.