ORDER Heard the counsel for the parties. The case was heard yesterday and on agreement of the parties, this case has been placed "For Orders and final disposal" today. 2. In this case, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction on, the Respondents to lift the ban/prohibition on transfer of any land held by the petitioner, which was subjected to Land Ceiling Case No. 8/82-83, 17/90-91 and thereby to allow the petitioner to sell any part of the land, subject to the aforesaid proceeding according to the choice of the petitioner. 3. The fact of the case, in brief, shows that a land ceiling proceeding being L.C. Case No. 8/82-83 was initiated against the land holder Triyugi, father of the petitioner in the Court of Sub-divisional Officer, Motihari Sadar. After the death of land holder, his widow Smt. Ram Gauri Devi was subsequently substituted besides the petitioner. 4. It appears that in the said case, initially some sort of ban was imposed to transfer the land, which was subject to the ceiling case. However, such order has not been enclosed by the petitioner in the writ petition. In the said case, initially the Sub-divisional Officer, Motihari Sadar declared 61.31 acres of land surplus against which the land holder preferred Appeal No. 136/76-77 which was dismissed. Thereafter, on revision preferred by landholder, the case was remitted to the Collector. The land holder then moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1247/85, wherein this Court passed certain orders permitting the petitioners to raise the issues to be determined, on remand, as was made by the Board of Revenue. After such remand, the Collector examined the matter in detail and vide its order dated 25th May, 1988 allowed the appeal and declared that the land holder did not hold any surplus land. 5. After about three years, the Collector of the district vide his order dated 11th January, 1991 ordered to reopen the ceiling case under Section 45B of the Ceiling Act against which the mother of the petitioner preferred writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3389/91 and this Court vide its order dated 16th September, 1991 while quashed the order dated 11th January, 1991, gave liberty to the Collector to proceed and pass order in accordance with law, if there be any material to reopen the matter. 6. 6. It appears from the order sheet and the office file, which has been enclosed by the petitioner as Annexure-4 that step was taken to reopen the matter for which Revenue Misc. Case No. 37/91-92 was registered. However, the said case was dismissed on 13th April, 1992 on the ground that the land holder was not interested in the matter. 7. According to the petitioner, his mother is suffering from cancer and another brother is suffering from heart ailment and underwent treatment at T.M.C., Mumbai and Escort Heart Institute, New Delhi; the land holder is in need of money for which he intended to sell certain part of the land which was the subject matter of the eerier ceiling case. However, in view of earlier ban imposed in the said case, the Respondent-District Registrar (Registration), Motihari has not allowed to register the sale deeds. 8. The counsel appearing on behalf of the State relied on sub-section (2) of Section 5 and Section 16 of the Ceiling Act. According to him, in terms with the aforesaid provisions, both the land holder and the vendee are required to obtain permission, prior to transfer of land. 9. I have heard the parties and on perusal of records and the provisions aforesaid, I find that the submission made on behalf of the counsel for the State is misconceived. The provision of sub-section (2) of Section 5 provides bar of transfer of land holder in certain circumstances, without permission in writing of the Collector. However, if any transfer is made without such permission, sub-section (2) to Section 9 stipulates how such land is to be adjusted as land of the land holder. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Ceiling Act while bars acquisition of land in excess to the ceiling area, therein no stipulation has been made to obtain permission prior to such purchase. Thereby, it is clear that if a person acquires land in excess to the ceiling area, such person acquires such land at his own risk, which can be declared as surplus. 10. So far as the present case is concerned, in the Land Ceiling Case No. 8/8283, the order of the appellate authority dated 25th May, 1988 became final, wherein while the appeal was allowed, it was declared that the land holder did not hold any surplus land. 10. So far as the present case is concerned, in the Land Ceiling Case No. 8/8283, the order of the appellate authority dated 25th May, 1988 became final, wherein while the appeal was allowed, it was declared that the land holder did not hold any surplus land. Thereafter, though the Respondent-Collector wanted to reopen the matter vide his order dated 11th January, 1991, the same having been set aside by the Court's order dated 16th September, 1991, it cannot be stated that the matter has been reopened. 11. So far as the Revenue Misc. Case No. 37/91-92 is concerned, in the said case, initially step was taken for again reopening the matter, but the same has been dismissed and as such, in the eye of law, no ceiling case can be treated to be pending against the land holder including the petitioner. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, according to me, even the provision of sub-section (2) of section 5 or sub-section (1) of section 16 of the Ceiling Act is not applicable in the present case. 13. So far as registration of a document is concerned, it is guided by the Registration Act, 1908. The District Registrar (Registration) is competent to register a document and/or pass order of refusal in terms with the provisions laid down therein. However, no power has been vested with the said District Registrar to refuse to register any document on the ground that some sort of permission has not been obtained in pursuance of certain other Act, which is not applicable in the case of a person like the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, I allow the writ petition and direct the Respondents, including the District Registrar (Registration), Motihari and/or Sub-Registrar, whoever is competent to register documents of transfer, if any document is being produced by the petitioner, they cannot refuse such registration giving reference of the Ceiling Case. 15. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.