SHIVASHANKAR PRASAD JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, these petitioners pray for quashing a portion of the order contained in Annexure 3. Annexure 3 is an order of, the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act)".

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners does not challange the whole of the order of the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, but only a portion of it mentioned hereinafter. By this order, the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, remanded the case for an inquiry to the learned Collector, Monghyr, except in respect of a deed of surrender dated 27-7-1971. This deed was executed by petitioner no. 1 in favour of Rajeshwar Prasad, in respect of 11.66 acres of land. The learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, was of the opinion that this deed of surrender cannot be a subject-matter of inquiry under Sec. 5 (1) (iii) of the Act for the simple reason that the transfer deed or the deed of surrender was executed without obtaining prior permission of the authority concerned.

(3.) The point raised in this case is covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Deosagar Singh and others v. The Stateof Bihar and ohers (1979 BBCJ 589). In that case it has been held that "the provisions of Sec. 5 (1) (iii) of the Act apply to a sale made on or after 9-9-1970 were no proper permission was obtained under Sec. 5 (I) (ii) of the Act for the simple reason that it is a sale made after 22nd October, 1959". Sec. 5 (I) (iii) of the Act authorises the Collector to make enquiries in respect of any transfer of land by a land-holder after 22nd October, 1959. In view of the fact that the alleged transfer was made on 27-7-1971, the Collector is entitled to make enquiries of the transfer under Sec. 5 (1) (iii) of the Act, Although no prior permission was obtained for such a transfer as envisaged by Sec. 5 (1) (ii) of the Act. We respectfully follow the Division Bench decision in the aforesaid case and hold that the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, has erred in not allowing the above transfer made on 27-7-1971 a subject-matter of enquiries under Sec. 5 (1) (iii) of the Act.