Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1430 (PAT)

Shiv Gulam Sah v. State Of Bihar

2008-09-15

V.N.SINHA

body2008
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the private respondents. 2. During the pendency of this writ application, petitioner left for his heavenly abode. Let the name of the petitioner be expunged from the cause title of this application and in his place heirs and legal representatives mentioned in Interlocutory Application No. 5660 of 2008 be substituted. 3. Interlocutory Application No. 5660 of 2008 is, accordingly, disposed of. 4. Original writ petitioner was the purchaser of 3 Katha, 5 Dhurs, 12 Kanwa of land in Revisional Survey Plot No. 4056 and 9 Dhurs of land in Revisional Survey Plot No. 5382 appertaining to Khata No. 1578 of Village-Nayagaon, Anchal-Sahei Bujurg in the District of Vaishali under sale deed dated 8.6.1998 executed by Private Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in his favour. Private Respondent No. 3 invited the attention of the Collector of the District to the fact that the aforesaid sale deed was executed without obtaining the permission from the competent authority under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), as is required under Section 5 of the Act as according to Private Respondent No. 3 on the date of execution of the sale deed the Register of Land and Statement of Principles, as required under Sections 9 and 9(A) of the Act, were published in terms of Section 10 of the Act. Appreciating the aforesaid submission learned Collector called for a report from the Deputy Director, Consolidation, who, in turn, called for the report from the concerned Consolidation Officer, who is said to have submitted the report contained in Letter No. 68 dated 30.12.1997, Annexure-3, perusal whereof does not indicate that the Statement of Principles to be followed in carrying out the consolidation operations, as required under Section 9(A) was formulated and published under Section 10 of the Act. Section 5 of the Act mandates permission from the Consolidation Officer for executing the sale deed only after publication of the Register of Land as also Statement of Principles to be followed in carrying out the consolidation operations. Section 5 of the Act mandates permission from the Consolidation Officer for executing the sale deed only after publication of the Register of Land as also Statement of Principles to be followed in carrying out the consolidation operations. On the basis of the contents of the report counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 19.6.2001, Annexure-6 declaring the sale deed in- question to be void is not in accordance with law as until the date of execution of the sale deed Statement of Principles were not published under Section 10 of the Act. 5. Aforesaid submission of the counsel for the petitioner has been controverted by the counsel for Private Respondent No. 3 as according to him both the Register of Land and the Statement of Principles to be followed in carrying out consolidation operations were published on the date of execution of the sale deed, as is evident from the information received from the office of the Consolidation Officer contained in Information-Slip dated 8.3.2002, Annexure-8 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3, wherefrom it appears that the Statement of Principles to be followed in carrying out the consolidation operations was published for 30 days between 6.6.1982 to 5.7.1982 and the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that no such principles were formulated and published on the date of execution of the sale deed is wholly misconceived. Appreciating such submission this Court called upon the counsel for Private Respondent No. 3 to furnish the certified copy of the requisition, Annexure-8 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3. Counsel for Private Respondent No. 3 could not produce the same. 6. Appreciating such submission this Court called upon the counsel for Private Respondent No. 3 to furnish the certified copy of the requisition, Annexure-8 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3. Counsel for Private Respondent No. 3 could not produce the same. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties, I set aside the impugned order dated 19.6.2001 passed in Revision Case No. 101 of 1997-98, Annexure-6 and remit back the matter to the Collector of the District directing the petitioner and Private Respondent No. 3 to appear before the Collector of the District on 20th October, 2008 when the learned Collector shall issue notice to the executant of the sale deed and confirm the contents of the Requisition Slip dated 8.3.2002, Annexure-8 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3 and in the event he founds that the Register of Land and the Statement of Principles to be followed in carrying out the consolidation operations stood already published on the date of execution of the sale deed then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 7. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.