Judgment : M. Y. EQBAL, J. ( 1 ) 1. HEARD Mr. S. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. B. Mahto, JC to GP 2 and with their consent, this writ application is disposed of at this stage. ( 2 ) IN this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 1/10/1985 passed by the Deputy commissioner-cum-Competent Authority, ranchi and also the order dated 29/7/1998 passed by the respondent No. 2, commissioner, South Chotanagpur division, whereby and whereunder the transfer made by the landholder in favour of the petitioners has been declared null and void. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. ( 4 ) ONE Smt. Kusum Sinha held and possessed one acre of land under Khata no. 171, Plot No. 74 situated at Village hehal, P. S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi. She sold 15 kathas of land alongwith house out of the said plot to one Sardar Bhagwan singh by virtue of a registered deed of sale- dated 12. 11. 1980. Bhagwan Singh after purchase got his name mutated in the office of the State of Bihar and paid rent in his name. Smt. Kusum Sinha also sold 15 kathas of land out of the said plot to Sardar pratap Singh by a registered deed of sale dated 12. 11. 1980. She through her constituted attorney Braj Nandan Prasad sold the remaining 30 kathas of land out of the said plot alongwith the house and other structure to Smt. Gurvinder Kaur, wife of sujeet Singh, Smt. Reshmi Kaur, wife of surendra Singh and Smt. Balminder Kaur, wife of Surdip Singh by a registered deed of sale dated 30. 4. 1981. It is stated that the said purchases got their names mutated in the Office of the Circle Officer in 1982-83 and paid rent in their names. The petitioners further case is that the said three purchasers namely Gurvinder Kaur, reshmi Kaur, and Balwinder Kaur in their turn sold 9 kathas 14 chhataks 20 square feet of land alongwith the house standing thereon to petitioner No. 1 by virtue of a sale deed dated 15. 12. 1986. They also sold 9 khatas 14 chhataks 20 square feet of land along with the house standing thereon to petitioner No. 2 by a registered deed of sale dated 15. 12. 1986. 12. 1986. They also sold 9 khatas 14 chhataks 20 square feet of land along with the house standing thereon to petitioner No. 2 by a registered deed of sale dated 15. 12. 1986. They also sold same area of land to petitioner No. 3 by virtue of a sale deed dated 15. 12. 1986. The petitioners alleged that after the purchase they got their names mutated in the office of the circle Officer. The petitioners, therefore, contended that they are the bona fide purchasers with respect to 29 kathas 11 chhataks 15 square feet of land alongwith the houses standing thereon. All of a sudden on 15. 4. 1991 a notice was issued by the Sukhdeonagar Police Station and was served upon the employee of the petitioners at Ranchi asking them to stop construction going over the land. During the course of enquiry the petitioners came to know in 1991 that a case under the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was initiated against Smt. Kusum sinha with respect to the land of plot No. 74 Khata No. 171. They also learnt that a draft publication was made in the name of smt. Kusum Sinha (in short the landholder) wherein 2000 square metres of land out of r. S. Plot No. 74 of Khata No. 171 situated at Village Hehal, P. S. Sukhdeonagar, district Ranchi were shown as excess vacant land proposed to be acquired by the state. It is stated that the said draft statement was never served to the landholder and the Competent Authority ultimately passed order on 4. 8. 1986 confirming the draft publication on the assumption that service of notice has been affected on the landholder. The petitioners further learnt that draft publication under section 10 (1) of the Act was published in the Gazette dated 23. 9. 1986 and ultimately final publication was also made under section 10 (3) of the said Act. The petitioners then moved the Commissioner, South chotanagpur Division in appeal under section 33 of the Act being U. L. C. Appeal no. 105/91. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal by passing the impugned order dated 28. 7. 1998 holding that the transfer made by the landholder in favour of the petitioners is null and void. The petitioners then moved the Commissioner, South chotanagpur Division in appeal under section 33 of the Act being U. L. C. Appeal no. 105/91. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal by passing the impugned order dated 28. 7. 1998 holding that the transfer made by the landholder in favour of the petitioners is null and void. ( 5 ) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State stating inter alia, that after the Ceiling Act, 1976 came into force the landholder filed her return and she opted to surrender 2000 sq metres of land from plot No. 74-A in Mauza Hehal. It is stated that the land in question has been shown as vacant land in the return filed by the landholder on 19. 10. 1976. In the enquiry report submitted by the kanoongo on 29. 7. 1985 the land in question has been shown as vacant land. After the filing of the return by the landholder a ceiling proceeding being U. L. C. Case No. 167/76 was initiated and during the pendency of the ceiling proceeding the landholder sold the land in question which is the vacant land without obtaining permission of the Competent Authority. The respondents further case is that the landholder did not choose tp file objection to the draft statement published in the gazette inspite of notice served on the landholder. As a matter of fact the landholder voluntarily surrendered the vacant land in question, which was beyond the ceiling limit. It is contended that transfer made by the landholder during the pendency of the ceiling proceeding was null and void. ( 6 ) A rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioners. From persual of the affidavits filed by the parties, the following admitted facts emerge, which are relevant for deciding the questions involved in the instant writ application: (I) The landholder Smt. Kusum Sinha held and possessed one acre of land of R. S. Plot No. 74 of Khata no. 171 situated at Village Hehal, p. S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi, which is within the Urban agglomerations. (II) After the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976 came into operation in the State of Bihar the landholder filed her return and in the said return she has shown the land of plot No. 74 as vacant land. 171 situated at Village Hehal, p. S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi, which is within the Urban agglomerations. (II) After the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976 came into operation in the State of Bihar the landholder filed her return and in the said return she has shown the land of plot No. 74 as vacant land. (III) During the pendency of the ceiling proceeding the landholder sold 30 kathas of land out of the said plot to Smt. Gurvinder Kaur, Smt. Reshmi Kaur, and Smt. Balminder kaur by a registered deed of sale dated 30. 4. 1981. The said purchasers in their turn sold altogether 29 kathas 11 chhataks 15 sq feet of the said land to the petitioners by three different sale deeds executed and registered in the year 1986. (IV) All these transfers have been affected without the permission of the Competent Authority as required under Section 26 of the said act. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid admitted facts the question falls for consideration is whether such transfer made in favour of the petitioners is null and void, as held by the Appellate Authority in the impugned order. ( 7 ) BEFORE answering the question, it is worth to quote Section 5 of the Act, which reads as under:"section 5. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid admitted facts the question falls for consideration is whether such transfer made in favour of the petitioners is null and void, as held by the Appellate Authority in the impugned order. ( 7 ) BEFORE answering the question, it is worth to quote Section 5 of the Act, which reads as under:"section 5. Transfer of vacant land- (1) In any State to which this Act applies in the first instance, where any person who had held vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit at any time during the period commencing on the appointed day and ending with the commencement of this Act, has transferred such land or part thereof by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise, the extent of the land so transferred shall also be taken into account in calculating the extent of vacant land held by such person and the excess vacant land in relation to such person shall, for the purposes of this Chapter, be selected out of the vacant land held by him after such transfer and in case the entire excess vacant land cannot be soselected, the balance, or where no vacant land is held by him after the transfer, the entire excess vacant land, shall be selected out of the vacant land held by the transferes: provided that where such person has transferred his vacant land to more than one person, the balance, or, as the case may be, the entire excess vacant land aforesaid, shall be selected out of the vacant land held by each of the transferees in the same proportion as the area of the vacant land transferred to him bears to the total area of the land transferred to all the transferees. (2) Where any excess vacant land is selected out of the vacant land transferred under Sub-section (1), the transfer of the excess vacant land so selected shall be deemed to be null and void. (2) Where any excess vacant land is selected out of the vacant land transferred under Sub-section (1), the transfer of the excess vacant land so selected shall be deemed to be null and void. (3) In any State to which this Act applies in the first instance and in any State which adopts this Act under Clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution, no person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit immediately before the commencement of this Act shall transfer any such land or part thereof by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise until he has furnished a statement under section 6 and a notification regarding the excess vacant land held by him has been published under sub-section (1) of Section 10; and any such transfer made in contravention of this provision shall be deemed to be null and void. " ( 8 ) SECTION 26 of the Act is also worth to be noticed. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person holding vacant land within the ceiling limit shall transfer such land by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise except after giving notice in writing of the intended transfer to the competent Authority. ( 9 ) ADMITTEDLY the land in question has been transferred by the landholder to the purchasers in 1981 and then the purchasers in their turn transferred the said land in favour of the petitioners without obtaining permission from the Competent Authority or without giving notice as contemplated under Section 26 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that these transfers have been made in favour of the petitioners during the pendency of the ceiling proceeding and after the draft statement published under section 10 (1) of the Act showing these lands as excess vacant land. The Appellate authority after considering all the evidence including the return of the landholder and the report to the Kanoongo came to a finding that the land in question is a vacant land. The Appellate Authority further noticed the fact that it was only in 1991 when the petitioners started raising construction, they were served with notices for stopping the construction. The Appellate Authority further noticed the fact that it was only in 1991 when the petitioners started raising construction, they were served with notices for stopping the construction. It is, therefore, clear that the landholder in her return shows the land in question as vacant land and it was transferred in contravention of the provisions of Section 5 (3) and Section 26 of the said Act. The Appellate Authority, therefore, held that such transfer of the land is null and void. I do not find any inconformity or illegality in the order passed by the Competent Authority or the Appellate authority. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. This writ application is dismissed. --- *** --- .