Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. -these three applications with the consent of the parties were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. However, the fact involved in each matter would be noticed separately. 3. Cwjc No.864 of 1993. By a registered deed of sale dated 15-3-1963 Sk. Sharif and others who are the recorded Raiyats of Khata Nos.213 and 215 executed a deed of sale dated 15-3-1963 in respect of Plot Nos 106,134 and 339 appertaining to khata No.213 and Plot No.394, 445, 472 and 371 appertaining to Khata no.215. Allegedly the transferee did not come in possession of the purchased lands and the recorded raiyats continued to be in possession. Respondent no 5 allegedly re-conveyed the said land to the said transferors by executing two registered deeds of sale dated 22-5-1990. The said deeds are contained in Annexures-5 and 5/a to the writ application. 4. According to the petitioner the petitioner No.1 was not a party to the aforementioned transfer although he had l/8th share therein. The petitioners have contended that" on 15-1-1993 they came to learn that the lands in question were going to be distributed and upon enquiry name to learn that two land ceiling proceedings being land Ceiling Case No.1283 and 1284 of 1973-74 was initiated against the land-holder and lands in question had wrongly been included as the surplus lands of the aforementioned land-holder in the notification issued under Sec.15 (1) of tho bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus)Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). 5. Cwjc No 1528 of 1992 in this application the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of a certiorari for quashing a notification dated 12-7-1991 issued under Section 15 (1) of the said Act as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application as also the order dated 4-2-1992 whereby the Respondent No.2 rejected an application filed by the petitioners under Sec.45-B of the said Act. 6. The petitioners are sons of the land-holder. The petitioner No.1 allegedly purchased lands appertaining to Khata Nos.6, 8 and 9 of Mouja sakma on the basis of two registered deeds of sale dated 26-5-1960. 7. According to the petitioners, Abul Sabul, Rashul and Nazir ahmad had two shares, whereas Demand had two shares. 6. The petitioners are sons of the land-holder. The petitioner No.1 allegedly purchased lands appertaining to Khata Nos.6, 8 and 9 of Mouja sakma on the basis of two registered deeds of sale dated 26-5-1960. 7. According to the petitioners, Abul Sabul, Rashul and Nazir ahmad had two shares, whereas Demand had two shares. Maqbool and tahir had also two shares, in Khata Nos 6 and 8. Khata No 9 was recorded in the name of Abul, Sabul, Rashul and Nazir Ahmad. The petitioner no 1 is said to have purchased shares of Doman. Maqbool and Tahir out of Khata Nos.6 and 8 by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 1-9-1960 and shares of Abul, Sabul and Rashul out of Khata Nos.6,8 and 9 by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated 26-5-1980. 8. Admittedly in the Revisional Survey Settlement Records of Right, khata No 70 of Mouja Sakma having an area of about 28 acres stood in the name of Tazamul Hussain and Bibi Hazra Khatoon which subsequently by mutual partition the entire lands of Khata No.70 fell the exclusive share and possession of Taxamul Hussain. 9. He allegedly executed a deed of gift on 20th March, 1972 in favour of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3. 10. The details of the said lands are as follows :- A land ceiling proceedings was initiated against the aforementioned tazammul Hussain being land Ceiling Case No.1283 and 1284 of 1973-74. 11 However, by reason of the aforementioned notification the said lands have been included as lands of landholders of the aforementioned proceedings. The petitioners filed an application under Sec.45-B of the Act for reopening of the case which was registered as Misc Case No 48/91-92. 12. The petitioners have contended that the said application was rejected by an order dated 4-2-1992 (Annexure-4 although no proceedings under Sec.5 (1) (iii) of the said Act was initiated. 13. Cwjc No.1543 of 1992. Tajamul Hussain has filed this application and the Respondent No.3 thereof in his sister. It has been contended that the said Tajamul Hussain has exclusive right and title in the lands details where of are as follows :- 14. According to the petitioner bis land has been treated as land of respondent No.3. The petitioner filed an application under Sec.45-B of the Act which was rejected by an order dated 4-2-1992. 15. It has been contended that the said Tajamul Hussain has exclusive right and title in the lands details where of are as follows :- 14. According to the petitioner bis land has been treated as land of respondent No.3. The petitioner filed an application under Sec.45-B of the Act which was rejected by an order dated 4-2-1992. 15. Neither in CWJC No.1528 or in CWJC No.1543 of 1992 the purported deed of partition has been produced, 16. It appears that Bibi Hazra Khatoon is sister of Tazamul Hussain. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that he had no knowledge about the proceedings against her. They further are cosharers as the lands have been recorded in the name of Tajamul Hussain and the Bibi Hazra Khatoon having equal share, but even before the Coilector of the district no deed of partition had been filed. 17. In this situation, if Tajamul Hussain had not been able to bring on records any new materials, it cannot be said that the Collector has acted illegally in refusing to reopen the proceedings. 18. However, so far as the case of the petitioners of CWJC No.1528/92 is concerned, from a perusal of the impugned order dated 5-2-92 passed in Misc. Case No.48/91-92 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application, it appears that the deed of gift was duly recognised in ceiling case No.1283 and 1284 of 1973-74. 19. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner did not reply as to how many units have been alloted in Ceiling case Nos.1283 and 1284 of 1973-74 which proceedings as noticed hereinbefore, were initiated against Tajamul Hussain and Bibi Hazra Khatoon. The Collector has further found that although the petitioner had stated about an oral partition but the same has not been recorded anywhere. The petitioners have also not adduced any evidence in this regard. 20. In this situation, the Collector has rightly held that it is difficult to believe, that the entire land of Khata No.17 has been gifted by Tajamul hussain in favour of the petitioner. 21. It has further has stated that in relation to transactions which were allegedly effected in the year 1960, no rent receipt had been produced. 22. 20. In this situation, the Collector has rightly held that it is difficult to believe, that the entire land of Khata No.17 has been gifted by Tajamul hussain in favour of the petitioner. 21. It has further has stated that in relation to transactions which were allegedly effected in the year 1960, no rent receipt had been produced. 22. In our opinion, however, the deed of gift was permissible in view of the fact that the same was made within the time granted by the legislature. 23. The learned counsel in support of this contention has relied upon a division Bench decision of this Court in S, K. Musan and Others V/s. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1977 BBCJ 54 . Sub-section (5) of Sec.5 of the said act reads thus : -" (5) Any land-holder, subject to the provisions of the tenancy law of the area may, if he has not already transferred, transfer, till the commencement of this act and within 1 (one year,) thereafter, by way of gift any land held by him as raiyat to his son, daughter, children, of this son of daugher or to such other person or who would have inherited such land or would have been entitled to a share therein had the land-holder died intestate in respect whereof, at midnight between the date of the commencement of this Act and the day just preceding such date so as not to exceed, together with any other land held by the donee, the area the donee can hold under Sec.5. " 24. Sub-section (5) of Sec.5 of the Act as originally enacted, permitted a transfer by way of gift initially for a period of six months which was later on extended to one year by Bihar Act No. XVIII of 1962. The second provision to the said Act was inserted by Bihar Ordinance no.113 of 1971. In terms of the said provisions a land-holder became entitled to execute-transfer any land during the period of three months from the commencement of the Ordinance, i e, 27th December.1971 by way of gift to his son, daughter, any children of his son or daughter. Other person or persons who would have inherited such land or would have been entitled to a share therein, had the landholder died intestate in respect thereof at midnight between the 26th and 27th December, 1971. Other person or persons who would have inherited such land or would have been entitled to a share therein, had the landholder died intestate in respect thereof at midnight between the 26th and 27th December, 1971. The said period was further extended by reason for Ordinance No.64 of 1972. 25. In S K. Musan V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 1977 B8cj 54, this aspect of the matter has been considered and it has been held as follows :- "this proviso refers to the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Fourth Amendment)Ordinance No.113 of 1971, Sec.3 of which also contained a similar provision Bihar Ordinance No.113 of 1971 was published in the Bihar Gazette dated the 27th of December, 1971, i. e. it came into force from that date. The registered deed of gift in favour of the petitioners of this case, were as stated earlier, made on the Ist February, 1972, and were within three months from that date. In the circumstances, in view of the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Sec.13 of the amending Act of 1972 (Bihar Act 1 of 1973), the registered deeds of gift dated the Ist of February, 1972, in favour of the petitioners, cannot be affected by the provisions of the said amending Act of 1972, and it was not open, therefore, to the respondent to ignore these registered deeds of gift in favour of the petitioners of this case. " 26 Further, the deeds of transfer made in favour of the petitioner no.1 in the year 1960 were required to be taken into consideration by the collector in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Sec.458 of the Act as it is possible for even member of a family to acquire lands in his own name. Such acquisition of land by a member of family governed by the mahomraedan Law cannot be brushed aside. Thus, if purchases had been made by the petitioner No, 1 by reason of the aforementioned two registered deeds of sale, the same cannot be ignored unless the same are annulled. The lands covered by the said deed of sale, thus were not liable to be tagged as the lands available at the hands of the petitioner No.1. Thus, if purchases had been made by the petitioner No, 1 by reason of the aforementioned two registered deeds of sale, the same cannot be ignored unless the same are annulled. The lands covered by the said deed of sale, thus were not liable to be tagged as the lands available at the hands of the petitioner No.1. The Collector of the District therefore, should consider the matter afresh from this point of view in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Sec.458 of the act. 27. In CWJC No.864 of 1993 |the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner had transferred the lands by reason of a deed of sale dated 15-3-1963. The said deed of sale was not annulled. 28. From a perusal of the recitals made in the said deed it appears that the consideration money stipulated therein passsd to the vendors from the vendees. 29. Section 2 (2) of the Actwill, however, bs attracted in such a case 30. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this court in jagannath Yadav V/s. State of Bihar, 1989 PLJR 818, wherein it has been held as follows: "in view of the aforementioned provisions, as they stand now, as the lands purchased by the petitioners. if the same does not exceed the ceiling area would be deemed to have been opted for the land holder, in my opinion, the collector should examine this case from this angle and pass necessary order in accordance with law. However, before passing such an order the Collector under the Act would satisfy itself that the petitioner themselves do not hold any land in excess of the ceiling area either individually or along with their family members interms of the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. 31. However, it has been contended that the petitioner No.1 had 1/8th share in 2 92 acres of land of Khata N0.213 and he was not party of the aforementioned deed of sale. If he was not party in the aforementioned deed of sale which he may prove to the satisfaction of the Collector, the same may also be considered by him in exercise of his power under Section 45-B of the Act. 32. These applications, are therefore, disposed of on the aforementioned terms, 33. If he was not party in the aforementioned deed of sale which he may prove to the satisfaction of the Collector, the same may also be considered by him in exercise of his power under Section 45-B of the Act. 32. These applications, are therefore, disposed of on the aforementioned terms, 33. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.