JUDGMENT Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. This writ application has been filed for quashing Annexure-8, which is a gazette notification No. 19 dated 1.1.1979 along with the notification No. 198 (Ceiling) of Land Reforms Department dated 18.11.1978 whereby and whereunder the lands were acquired under Section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and Annexure-11, which is the order of the Additional Collector dated 12.6.1985, refusing to interfere with the notification aforesaid, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to make corrections therein and also Annexure-14 which is the order dated 25.8.1993 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in case No. 51(R) 28/89-90 whereby and whereunder a petition under Section 45(B) of the Act filed by the writ petitioner was rejected declaring the purchase of the land in dispute to simply a paper transaction and consequently issuing a direction for distribution of that land to the landless, besides for a declaration that the land in dispute cannot be acquired under the Act with an alternative prayer that on account of her being a displaced person as her land was acquired by the HEC, to settle the land in her favour with the additional prayer to direct the respondents to forebear the respondents from settling the land in dispute with the landless. 2. The short facts of the case is that the petitioner claims to have purchased 3 acres 75 dec. of land bearing plot Nos. 1020, 1019, 1016, 379 and 476 of village - Hessapiri and plot Nos. 1012, 1026, 1014, 1016, 1022 and 1025 in village Hessapiri for a consideration of Rs. 5000/- in the year 1963 from Sri Bal Mukund Nath Shahdeo by Annexure-3 and further she purchased by Annexure-4 another pieces of 2 acres of land in Hesalpur for a consideration of Rs. 6000/- from the same person in the year 1964. The petitioner claims that her lands in khata No. 173 in village Murma District - Ranchi, measuring 3.77 acres were acquired for Hatia Township, which stood in the name of Ledwa Kurmi and an award has been made an compensation was paid to the awardees. Then there was certain understanding between the HEC and the Government with regard to providing employment to the displaced landholders. Then there was certain understanding between the HEC and the Government with regard to providing employment to the displaced landholders. The case of the petitioner is that as she was a displaced person under the aforesaid award, she had purchased the aforesaid land in order to rehabilitate herself and subsequently land was mutated in her name by Annexure-5, rental, receipts were issued by Annexure-6 and ultimately a Khatian was prepared with regard to Hesalpur land in her favour and her status was shown as Kaime, Annexure-7/1. With the facts aforesaid, it appears that in the year 1972, the son of the seller submitted returns and in that, it was not mentioned that the land in dispute were retained for personal use of that man; consequently the lands were acquired as stated above and that necessitated the passing of Annexures-11 and 8 although the petitioner did hot surrender her possession. That led to a petition being filed, which was rejected. That led to filing of CWJC No. 1281/1985R, Annexure-12, whereby the Court by order dated 17.7.1989 directed the petitioner to file an application under Section 45-B of the Act, before the competent authority and directed the competent authority to enquire into and pass an order under Section 45-B. Consequent thereto, an order was passed and the prayer of the petitioner was rejected and thereupon that order was challenged in CWJC No. 642/1993R Annexure-15, and was quashed. 3. The respondents appeared and filed a counter-affidavit. In the counter- affidavit, it was stated that the surplus land of Lal Broj Mohan Shahdeo and Lal Dilip Nath Shahdeo had been acquired after observing of the formalities of the Act, who were landholders and did not mention the sale of the land in question in the returns filed by then, nor any objections were filed by the petitioner before acquiring the surplus land and as such, it was clear that the sale deed, if any executed in favour of the petitioner, was mere paper transaction. It was. also averred that the acquisition does riot hit any provisions of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and the impugned order was passed after hearing the parties and in accordance with the directions given in the order passed in CWJC No. 642/93R. 4. It was. also averred that the acquisition does riot hit any provisions of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and the impugned order was passed after hearing the parties and in accordance with the directions given in the order passed in CWJC No. 642/93R. 4. The claim of the petitioner that she was a displaced person from HEC and consequently the lands were purchased by her to rehabilitate herself and in terms of the agreement made by the HEC for the displaced persons, the petitioner cannot be evicted from the land in question was not challenged by the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for State argued that the Act had come in 1961 and thereafter it was known to all the landholders and so in order to defeat the objects of the Act, such a transaction was made and thus, it was a paper transaction as the petitioner had not made any objection though the draft notification was widely published. 6. The following facts are admitted :-- (A) Petitioner is in possession of the lands in question. (B) The vendor (landholder) of the petitioner hand not filed the returns rather the son of the vendor had filed the returns in the year 1973-74, i.e. after ten years of the sale. This fact is not disputed and in the writ petition (CWJC No. 1281/85R) (para 4) such finding has been given, Annexure-12. (C) The petitioner had purchased the land by Registered Deed, Annexures 3 and 4. (D) Her name was mutated (An-nexure-6) and Khatian (Annexure-7) was prepared in her name and rent receipts were (Annexure-6) issued to her [Taken note of by the Court in writ, Annexure-12]. (E) The Court by Annexure-12 gave a positive direction to the competent authority to enquire into this matter keeping in view the facts as mentioned hereinbefore, as also the provisions of the Act. (F) The order that was passed pursuant to the order aforesaid declared that the transfer in favour of petitioner was a paper transaction. (G) The order aforesaid was again challenged and in CWJC No. 642/1993(R) (Annexure-15), that was quashed and the Court held that the finding that the transfer was a paper transaction was based on conjecture and surmises and the Court directed to pass a fresh order in the light of the order passed in Annexure-12 and not to disturb the possession of the petitioner. 7. 7. In the background of the above facts, it is to be examined whether the impugned order conforms to the directives of the Court as given in Annexure-12. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the document of transfer, mutation etc. were filed by the petitioner before the authority. These documents were declared paper transaction only on the ground that the returns which was filed by the landholder did not disclose that the disputed land were sold to the petitioner. It has been stated in the order impugned that had the transfer been made, then it was the duty of the landholder to indicate it in the returns. It appears that when the returns was filed, the original land holder, i.e. the father of the returns-filer, had died, this has also been noted in Annexure-10, which was passed in the year 1989, Annexure-10 shows that the returns was filed not by the vendor but by his sons; obviously when the impugned enquiry was conducted, then vendor was not there to say whether or not the transaction was in good faith. The surprising aspect of the impugned order (Annexure-14) is that it records that enough opportunity was given to Bal Mukund Nath Shahdeo (penultimate paragraph), thus a dead man was given opportunity. This shows the quality of the enquiry and thus of the impugned order. 8. In earlier orders passed by the authority, the same phrase "paper transaction" was used. What is a paper transaction requires some discussion. The word, "paper transaction" has not been defined anywhere but it has its nearest synonym in "paper title" which has been defined in Blacks Legal Dictionary as follows :-- "A title to land evidenced by a conveyance or chain of conveyances; This term generally implying that such title, which it has colour of plausibility, is without substantial validity." Therefore, before any transaction is branded as paper title/transaction, it has to be found whether it is without any substance. Enquiry should, therefore, to come to such finding, examine whether consideration had passed, whether possession was delivered etc. Though possession is admitted (Annexure-12), yet no probing was made in respect of passing of consideration. The possession of the petitioner cannot just be ignored. Enquiry should, therefore, to come to such finding, examine whether consideration had passed, whether possession was delivered etc. Though possession is admitted (Annexure-12), yet no probing was made in respect of passing of consideration. The possession of the petitioner cannot just be ignored. From Shiv Narain Khawaray v. State of Bihar, 1977 BBCJ 452, relied by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in 1984 PLJR 842 , it is clear that for coming to a finding of Benami transaction under Section 5(iii) of the Act, the possession should be verified as a fact, Whereas in the instant case, it is admitted, but the nature of possession was not considered; there is no finding that the transfer was not effective, Kamla Prasad Mishra v. State of Bihar, AIR 1985 Pat 364 . Merely the transfer not being indicated in the returns filed by the sons of the vendor some ten years after, is not sufficient to come to such a clinching conclusion, in absence of finding of effectiveness of the transaction. Had the vendor himself submitted that returns, such omission could have been adversely interpreted against the petitioner. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order itself appears to be a paper enquiry and a willful repetition of the same reasonings which was quashed earlier. It is, thus, found that the enquiry did not touch those aspects and those evidence such as nature of possession, passing of consideration, effectiveness of transfer which were essentially required to be found under the order of this Court and also were very necessary for coming to a clinching inference that the transfers were merely paper transactions and were made to defeat/ frustrate the objects of the Act. Thus, the impugned order conveniently ignores the spirit of Section 5(i)(iii) of the Act and on the lone, fact that in the returns filed by the successors of the vendor did not disclose that those lands were transferred. 10. In the result, the impugned notification to the extent it relates to the disputed land and the impugned order are quashed. The writ is allowed.