Judgment Hari Lal Agtawal, J. 1. All these three writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The matter arises out of proceedings taken under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land Act), 1951 (hereinafter to be referred to as the act) C. W. JC. no.1041 of 1977 has been filed by Jai Narain Ram (petititioner no.1), the landholder against whom the proceeding was initially started, his soa Shiva kumar and his wife Shrimati Jamuna Devi (petitioner nos.2 and 3 respectively), the other two applications, namely, C. W. J. C. nos.1037 and 1049 of 1977 have been filed by the transferees or settlees from the alleged benamidars of the landholder mentioned above. 2. A proceeding under the Act, namely, Ceiling Case no.77 of 1973-74 was started against Jai Narain Ram aforesaid, who was served with a notice under section 8 (i) of the Act, directing him to submit return of the lands held by him. The said petitioner submitted return with respect to only 39.32 acres of land said to have been held by him. According to his case, he did not hold any surplus land liable to be acquired. The matter was sent for verification to the sub-divisional officer, Bagahs. The verification report was submitted on 17.5.1975, according to which petitioner Ramnarain Ram was holding 958.325 acres of land in his own name as well as in the names of his farzidars and relations. The additional collector, Bettiah by his order dated 13.8.1975 held that the family of the landholder was entitled to two units ; one for the father, namely, Jai Narain Ram and his wife and the other for his major son Shiva Kumar (petitioner no.2 in c. W. J. C. no.1041 of 1977), and after allowing an area of 52.15 acres for the two units, declared 906-175 acres as surplus. A draft statement was published accordingly. On the basis of the verification report that the landholder had created various documents to defeat the provisions of the Act, notices were issued to the settlees and/or transferees by the Deputy Collector Incharge, Land reforms, Bagaha, purporting to be under the provisions of sections (i) (iii) of the Act, for annulment of the transactions. 3. On the basis of the verification report that the landholder had created various documents to defeat the provisions of the Act, notices were issued to the settlees and/or transferees by the Deputy Collector Incharge, Land reforms, Bagaha, purporting to be under the provisions of sections (i) (iii) of the Act, for annulment of the transactions. 3. It may ba maintained that the transfers and settlements in question are of three categories namely (1) these affected 22.10.1959, (ii) those affected after 22.10.1959 but before 9.9.1970, and (iii) those effected after 9.9.1970. 4. It may be mentioned that Satya Narain Agrawal, petitioner no.1 in C W. J. C no.1037 of 1977 had purchased an area of 39.53 acres from Jamuna Devi, wife of the landholder Jainarain Ram, by a registered deed of sale, dated 14.8.1959. Prayag Chand, the ancestor of petitioner nos.2 to 11 in the aforesaid application, had acquired different areas of lands by several registered sale-deeds as well as by settlements, but all prior to 22.10.1959. Some of the transfers apparently are not related to the family of the landholder, such as Sheonandan mistri, Sukar Mahto, Gulai Mian, etc. 5. Similarly, all the petitioners, except petitioner no.6 Prahlad Rai and petitioner no.7 Bijoy Kumar of C. W. J. C. no.1049 of 1977, who purchased lands from Sharda Devi, daughter of Jai Narain Ram, by separate registered deeds of sale on 16.9.1970, other petitioners are settlees, donees or purchasers prior to that date. The nature of the transactions in this case, however, is slightly different from those of C. W. I. C. no.1037. In this case, some of the transfers or settlements have been effected before 22.10.1959, but some have been effected after 22.10.1959. As I propose to send the matter on remand to the Additional collector, Bettiah for consideration of the matter afresh, I do not think necessary to give the details of those transactions separately. 6. The transferees in pursuance to the notices issued to them, appeared before the Additional Collector and contended that their transfers were genuine and had not been effected by their vendors with the intention of retaining any land more than the ceiling area or to defeat the provisions of the Act. 6. The transferees in pursuance to the notices issued to them, appeared before the Additional Collector and contended that their transfers were genuine and had not been effected by their vendors with the intention of retaining any land more than the ceiling area or to defeat the provisions of the Act. They contended that they were corning in possession of the lands acquired by them in their own rights and were duly mutated in the Revenue records and were granted rent receipts by the ex-intermediaries and the State also accepted the transferees as tenants under it after the vesting of the zamindari and granted rent receipts to them. Their case with respect to the transactions made prior to 22.10.1959 was, and has as also been contended before us, that no proceeding could be taken by the respondent additional Collector under the Act for annulment of the same. 7. The case of the land-holder Jai Narain Ram was that his joint family held in all 129.81 acres of land. There was a partition suit no.368 of 1970 filed for partition of the family properties in which a compromise decree was passed on 22.12.1971 and the aforesaid 129.81 acres of land were allotted to the shares of the respective parties as follows : - (i) Jai Narain Ram. . .39.32 acres (ii) Shiva Kumar. . .39.39 aeres. (iii) Jamuna Devi. . .39.19 acres, (iv) Parbati Kuer. . .11.91 acres. His further case is that in pursuance of the compromise decree, the parties came in possession of their respective shares exclusively and were mutated in the revenue records and Jamabandis were separated. The land-holders have further stated in their application that an area of 20-90 acres of land in village Barnihar allotted to the share of petitioner no.3 Jamuna Devi was not included in the draft statement, and it was contended by their learned counsel that in order to avoid any further complication, those lands which appertain to Khata nos.34 and 66, fully described in paragraph 6 of the writ application, should also be included in the proceeding so that the petitioner may have the privilege of exercising a proper option in selecting the desired land in their ceiling areas. The case of the petitioners in paragraph 6 (b) is that in the year 1958, they had made a donation of 14 khatas 2 dhurs of land for establishing a Girls School in the name of the wife of the landholder, namely, Parbati Kanya Vidyalaya for which a building was constructed and a school is being run, since 1958 under the control and management of the State Government. It has been contended that in the draft statement, the said land was also shown as the land held by Jai Narain Ram. 8. Various other objections were also raised by the landholder, such as irregularity in the matter of verification, absence of separate notice to the major son Shiva Kumar of the landholder and proper classification of the lands, etc. but for the view that I propose to take, it is not necessary to notice, much less to discuss, those objection. 9. The Additional Collector by his orders, dated 13.8.1975 and 26.11.1975 rejected" all the objections of the landholder as well as the transferees annulled the transfers and, as already said earlier, declared 906.17 acres of land as surplus. 10. Against the order of the Additional Collector, three appeals were preferred :one by the landholder and the other two by the transferees, before the commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, but all the three appeals were dismissed by him by his order dated 10.5.1976. The parties then preferred revision applications before the Board of Revenue. The learned Additional member, Board of Revenue respondent no. (2), who heard all the revision applications together allowed the same in part by his resolution, dated 15.3.1977 (annexure "6" in C. W J. C. nos.1037 and 1049 of 1977 and annexure 4 in C. W. J. C. no.1041 of 1977) and set aside the order of the Additional collector and the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, and remanded the matter to the Additional Collector for considering the following points : " (i) The question of classification of the lands ; (ii) A detailed examination of the question as to what would constitute the total landholding of the landholders family giving the notice to all the persons in whose names the lands were recorded. " The learned Additional Member has observed in his resolution that there being a general presumption that the person in whose name the land stands recorded holds that land as a raiyat/under raiyat, unless the contrary is proved, detailed enquiry was required to be held in the matter and full reasons given to rebut the presumption. 11. He has, however, refused the prayer of the landholders to exercise option. With respect to the transfers made after 9.9.1970, the additional Member, Board of Revenue annulled them on the ground that they were made without permission of the competent authority. The petitioners have accordingly filed separately the three writ applications, as already mentioned above. 12. From the facts stated above, it is clear that by virtue of the remand order made the Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, much of the grievance of the landholders i. e. the petitioners of C. W. J. C. no.1041 of 1977 will be redressed. The Additional Collector who has treated the lands standing in the name of other persons to be the lands of the land-holders will now hold a detailed enquiry and permit the parties to lead evidence to rebut the presumption that the apparent state of affairs were not real. In other words as to whether the persons, who are the holders of the lands in question are merely benamidars and farzidars of Jai narain Ram. I do not think on this account any further interference is needed. 13. The contrition that certain lands situated in village Barnihar which were allotted on partition to Shrimati Jumna Devi, wife of Jai Narain Ram which were left out to be included in the proceeding by the Additional Collector should also be included for determining the ceiling area to be held by the family of the land-holders, should also be accepted, Learned Standing Counsel no. III also conceded for inclusion of the said lands after the remand of the case. 14. The grievance of the petitioners that the lands donated as a Girls School were also included in the draft statement, will also be remedied if the right to exercise option is given to the petitioners because in that event, the landholders will be entitled to select the lands of their choice within their ceiling area and leave out the other lands as surplus. No serious objection was raised on behalf of the respondents in this regard. No serious objection was raised on behalf of the respondents in this regard. I would, accordingly, direct the Additional Collector that after determination of the question as to what was the landholding of the landholders he would give them the right to exercise option in selecting the lands within their ceiling area. 15. All the petitioners have also challenged constitutional validity of the act on the ground that it is violative of the protection provided under Articles 19: (1) (f) and 31 of the Constitution of India. But inasmuch as the matter is going back to the Additional Collector on remand for a fresh decision in view of the observations and directions made by the Board of Revenue as well as by this court, I do not think it necessary to go into that question. I would, accordingly leave this question open to be raised by the petitioners at any subsequent stage if so advised. There is no other question to be considered in the case of the landholders. 16. Coming to the case of the transferees or settlees, i. e. the petitioners in C. W J C nos 1037 and 1049 of 1977 Mr. Shreenath Singh, who apeared on their behalf, seriously contended that the Revenue authorities under the provisions of the Act had no jurisdiction to examine the validity of others of the transactions which had taken place prior to 22.10.195 ). We have already seen that the board of Revenue has given a general direction to the Additional Collector to make a detailed examination with respect to all the lands which were treated is lands belonging to the land-holders (Jai Narain Rum and his family) but standing in the names of different persons, irrespective ofthe fact whether the transactions were effected prior to 22.10.1959 or after that date. In this connection the relevant provisions which empower the Collector to make enquiries in respect of any transfer is contained in section 5 () (iii) of the Act after the amend ment of 1973 by Act 1 of 1973, which reads as follows : - "the Collector shall have power to make inquiries in respect of any transfer of land by a land-holder, whether made by a registered instrument or otherwise, made after the 22nd day of October 1959 and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made, with the object of defeating, or in contravention of the provisions of this act or for retaining, berani or farzi, land in excess of the ceiling area, the Collector may after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard, annul such transfer and there upon the land shall be deemed to be held by the transfer for the purpose of determining the ceiling area he may hold under this section. " The manifest intention of the legislature that seems to have necessitated the amendment is to empower the Collector to make inquiry whether any transfer was in point of fact actually made at any time after 22.10.1959, although prima facie it appeared to have been made before the said date. 17. Reference in this connection may be made to the provisions of section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act (XXX of 1950) where also the Collector was empowered to enquire whether any transfer was made after the 1st, January, 1946 with an intention to defeat the provisions of the said Act. Somewhat similar amendment was made in the said provision by Bihar Act XVI of 1959. (See moorahoo Singh V/s. Rajaram Singh and another, 1960 BLJR 738 ). 18. Having examined the provisions of section 5 (1) (Hi) of the Act, I would accept the contention of Mr. Shreenath Singh and hold that the Collector (in this case the additional Collector) had no jurisdiction to make any inquiry regarding the validity or otherwise of any transfer made by any land-holder or for that matter by any of his benamidar, etc. before the 22nd October, 1959 ). Shreenath Singh and hold that the Collector (in this case the additional Collector) had no jurisdiction to make any inquiry regarding the validity or otherwise of any transfer made by any land-holder or for that matter by any of his benamidar, etc. before the 22nd October, 1959 ). Reliance can be placed in support of this proposition upon the Bench decisions of this Court in Mahabir Prasad and others V/s. The State of Bihar and others, ( 1975 BBCJ 701 ) ; S. K. Musan and others V/s. The State of Bihar and others, ( 1977 BBCJ 54 ) and M/s. Purtabpye Company Ltd V/s. The Stats of Bihar and others, (AIR 1977 Patna 283 ). The position in law with respect to the other transactions which are effected by unregistered documents, such as settlement or otherwise, after the amendment of the provision by Bihar Act 1 of 1973, however, seems to be a little different. As already observed earlier, now the Collector has power to make inquiry as to whether any transfer was actually made at any time after the 22nd October, 1959 or not. In other words, according to the amended provision, now the Collector has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the question that any transfer, though prima facie shown to have been made on or before the 22nd October, 1959, was actually made after that date for the purpose of defeating the provisions of the Act. Having examined the legal position, it has now to be seen as to whether the additional Collector can still be directed to make any inquiry in regard to the validity and genuineness of those transfers and settlements made by the land-holders or their benamidars (if any) by unregistered documents, prima fade appearing to have been effected prior to 22nd October, 1959. 19. In paragraph 2 of both the writ applications filed by the transferees/ settlees, it has been asserted by them that they have been coming in possession of the lands from the date of the respective transfers in their favour and their names were shown in the return submitted by the ex-intermediary and they have been granted rent receipts by the ex-intermediary as well as the State of Bihar after the vesting of the estates, recognising them as tenants after mutating their names in the Revenue records. In the counter-affidavit that has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4, these assertions have not been controverted and the only stand taken in paragraph 4, which is in answer to the statements made in paragraph 2 of the writ applications, is that "mutation in the name of so called transferee was made as a matter of course. After actual verification the real position was brought to light that the so-called transferees were farzidars of shri Jainarayan Ram". In view of the above pleading, Mr. Shreenath Singh appearing for these petitioners rightly contended that the date of settlement and/ or transfers made in favour of the concerned petitioners was not in controversy and what was actually disputed by the respondents was the genuineness of those transactions. Under the circumstances, in my view, there is no question of any inquiry by the Additional Collector as to whether those transactions had actually taken place subsequent to 22nd October, 1959, and that the petitioners concerned had set up a false case by showing them to have taken place earlier, with mala fide intention. I would, accordingly, hold that all those transactions which took place on or before the 22nd October, 1959, could not be annulled and no inquiry under section 5 (1) (iii) of the Act can be held by the Additional Collector and the lands covered under those transactions must be excluded from the present proceeding and cannot be taken into account for determining the ceiling areas of the land-holders family. The direction given by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, in his resolution dated 15.3.1977 to the contrary must be held to be bad in law and is, accordingly, set aside. But at the same time I would maintain the direction of the Additional Member for holding the inquiry by the Additional collector in respect of the transfers effected after 22.10.1959 and before 9.9.1970. 20. Now remains for consideration the transactions effected in favour of some of the petitioners after 9.9.1970. The Additional Member, Board of revenue, has held them as invalid on the sole ground that they were made "without permission of the competent authority". 20. Now remains for consideration the transactions effected in favour of some of the petitioners after 9.9.1970. The Additional Member, Board of revenue, has held them as invalid on the sole ground that they were made "without permission of the competent authority". Sec.5 (1) (ii) of the Act prohibits any land-holder to transfer any land held by him except with the previous permission in writing of the Collector on and from the commencement of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of surplus Land) (Separate Amendment) Act, 1972. This prohibition had been made with effect from the 9th September, 1970, a date on which an Ordinance to that effect was issued earlier. The prohibition, however, is not absolute and it applies only to such land-holders who hold "land in excess of the ceiling area". The two transferees, namely, Prahlad Rai and Bijoy Kumar (Petitioner nos.6 and 7 in C. W. J. C. No.1049 of 1977) are purchasers from Sharda Devi, a daughter of Jainarain Ram, by sale-deeds dated 16.9.1970. Since the Board of Revenue has already observed that there has been no proper inquiry as to whether the relations of Jai Narain Ram were his farzidars or not, for the same reason I would also direct the additional Collector that he would also hold inquiry as to whether Sharda Devi was holding the lands transferred by her in her own rights or for or on behalf of her father Jai Narain Ram. After this inquiry is held, the additional Collector, in view of the provisions just referred to above must also inquire as to whether the transferor was holding land in excess of the ceiling area permissible to be held by her or him, as the case may be, on the relevant date. If it is found that the land-holding of the transferor was within the ceiling area, then apparently no previous permission of the Collector was required for making the transfers in question. The Revenue authorities, therefore, have committed an apparent error of law in annuling the transfers effected after 9.9.1970. If it is found that the land-holding of the transferor was within the ceiling area, then apparently no previous permission of the Collector was required for making the transfers in question. The Revenue authorities, therefore, have committed an apparent error of law in annuling the transfers effected after 9.9.1970. 21 I would, accordingly, allow these writ applications and quash the orders of the Additional Collector, Bettiah, and of the Commissioner, Tirhut division, Muzaffarpur, on appeal, and also modify the order of the learned additional Member, Board of Revenue, dated the 15th March, 1977, a copy of which has been made Annexure 6 to C. W. J. C. Nos.1037 and 1049 of 1977 and annexure 4 to C. W. J. C. No.1041 of 1977, to the extent already indicated above, namely, that the Additional Collector shall hold no inquiry with respect to any of the transactions which was effected on or before 22nd October, 1959, however maintaining his direction to the extent of holding inquiry in respect of the transfers effected after 22.10.1959 and before 9.9.1970. The Additional collector would also hold inquiry with respect to the transfers made by Sharda devi, daughter of Jai Narain Ram and thereafter determine afresh the total landholding of the landholders. He must conduct the inquiry after giving the parties concerned adequate opportunity of adducing proper evidence in support of their respective cases and thereafter if it is found that any land held by any landholder is in excess of the ceiling area permissible under the law, he would give them afresh option to select the land of their choice within their respective ceiling units. 22. In the result, the applications succeed to the extent indicated above ; but in the circumstances, I shall make no order as to costs application allowed.