ORAL ORDER The petitioner no.1 is a Company within the Meaning of Indian Companies Act, 1956 and owns Sugar Factory. Petitioner no.3, the Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. Unit is a lessee of petitioner no.1. 2. Petitioner no.2 is the share holder as well as Chairman of both petitioner nos. 1 and 3. 3. (a). The petitioners seek direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 not to fasten the liability of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act against petitioner no.2, the Chairman of the petitioner nos.1 and3, as well as for quashing of Warrant of Arrest issued under Section 8 B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “E.P.F. Act, 1952”). Prayer has also been made for fixation of easy instalments for clearing Provident Fund dues. (b) They further seek directions to the respondents to register the sale deeds as contained in Annexure-7 and 7/A and also to quash the order dated 18.02.2013 contained in Memo no.741 dated 19.02.2013 passed by District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari (Annexure-15), by which he has declined to approve permission for registration of sale deeds contained in Annexure-7 and 7/A. 4. In course of hearing of this application, I.A. No.3576 of 2013 has been filed for amendment of relief, seeking quashing of order dated 18.04.2013 passed by Recovery Officer, Employee Provident Fund Organization, Sub-Regional Office, Muzaffarpur, contained in Annexure-20, by which land belonging to petitioner no.1 measuring 5 Bighas, 5 Kathas and 10 Dhurs have been attached. The amendment sought in relief portion is allowed as cause of action arose subsequent to filing of writ application. 5. Before I take up the issues raised by the parties, it would be relevant to notice the facts of the case in short. (a) Earlier petitioner nos. 2 and 3 moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No.8734 of 2009 against the order passed under Section 8-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 whereby recovery proceeding was initiated for non-payment of Provident Fund dues under section 7-A of the Act to the tune of Rs.80,88,709/-. The petitioners pleaded that on account of weak financial position of the company, it is not able to liquidate the entire dues at a time, nonetheless intended to generate funds by disposing some of its properties. The petitioners pleaded that on account of weak financial position of the company, it is not able to liquidate the entire dues at a time, nonetheless intended to generate funds by disposing some of its properties. The petitioners sought co-operation of the registering authorities in selling some land of the companies as well as private land of Nopani family. (b) During the pendency of the writ application, the Sugar Mill Labour Union and the Cane Grower Labour Association filed Interlocutory applications for being impleaded as parties. They too had certain money claim against the petitioners. The intervenors were allowed to be added as parties. In course of hearing “Hanuman Sugar and Industries Ltd.” (petitioner no.1 of the instant case), was also added as a party in C.W.J.C. No.8734 of 2009 on pleadings of respondents as being lessor of petitioner Eastern Sugar Industries Ltd. (c) The Court observed that the petitioners could sell properties of Nopani family and other properties which were free from encumbrances to pay off the dues of labourers, Cane Growers and P.F. Department. (d) It was further case of the petitioners that pursuant to order of this Court they had negotiated and received a sum of Rs. 1 crore against sale of land which has been referred before and has distributed the same as follows: (a) Rs.30 lacs has been paid by the petitioner towards clearance of arrears of cane price. (b) Rs.51.36 lacs has been paid by the petitioner towards clearance of arrears of wages as well as current wages of the workers. (c) Rs.30.44 lacs has been paid by the petitioner towards the Provident Fund dues and (d) Rs.33.60 lacs has been spent by the petitioner in repair, working and maintenance of the factory. 6. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari in his counter affidavit stated that a Land Ceiling case being Ceiling Case no. 03/1984-85 is going on against the petitioners. In the said Proceeding, an area bearing 34.05 acres under Section 29(I)(B)(vi) for plant and Machinery, and an area measuring 100 acres of land for purposes of production of Seed and Nursery under Section 29(2)(A)(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 had been proposed for exemption and necessary recommendation has been sent to the State Government for approval, which is still awaited. The said exemption was in addition to 18 acres proposed to be left as one unit to Land holder; that is the Sugar Mill. It was contended that as the entire land of Sugar Mill is under the process of a ceiling case, hence sale / disposal of the land is barred till its final disposal but sale of the private properties of Nopani family is never restricted. After hearing the parties, the writ application was disposed of on 09.10.2012 with the following directions: “i) The petitioners would be entitled to sell the private land of Nopani family and the respondents would ensure full cooperation in disposing of the land by way of registration etc. ii) The District Magistrate in its counter affidavit stated that 18 acres of land has been left as one unit to land holder, on some portion of the land the Mill exists. The District Magistrate would hold a meeting with the petitioners or its representative within five weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and discuss the feasibility/possibility of sale of some portion of this one unit of land to clear the dues of Provident Fund Department, labourers and Cane Growers. The final out come of the meeting should be reduced in writing. If any one is aggrieved by the final out come of the meeting, one would be at liberty to challenge the same. iii) In any view of the matter, the petitioners would clear off the dues of the Provident Fund Department against which the writ substantially has been filed, within a period of six months from today. In the meanwhile, the Provident Fund department would not take any coercive steps against the petitioners.” 7. In the light of the order of this Court, the District Magistrate under his Chairmanship constituted a committee of some senior Officers as well as Circle Officer (Sadar) Motihari. The government Advocate was also requested to participate in the proceedings. The Mill too was represented through its learned counsel. 8. The matter was heard on different dates and was finally disposed of by the District Magistrate vide his order dated 18.02.2013. The government Advocate was also requested to participate in the proceedings. The Mill too was represented through its learned counsel. 8. The matter was heard on different dates and was finally disposed of by the District Magistrate vide his order dated 18.02.2013. The District Magistrate declined to grant permission for sale of proposed 5 bighas, 5 kathas and 10 dhurs of land, as it formed part of 34.05 acres of land earmarked under Section 29(I)(B)(vi) specifically for use of Plant and Machinery for running of Sugar Mill. The District Magistrate observed that the petitioners have not given any details in respect of any proposal for sale from portions of one unit of land, which the land holder is entitled to hold. The said order is in challenge in this writ application. 9. The petitioners state that the order of District Magistrate refusing permission for sale and registration is in violation of Section 5(ii) and Section 9 of the Ceiling Act. A party has a legal right to dispose of his own properties. According to them, Section 5(ii) of the Bihar Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Ceiling Act”) does not prohibit sale of land within the ceiling permissible even during the Ceiling proceeding, but with permission of the Collector. 10. The petitioners submit that petitioner no.1 being a juristic person would be entitled to hold at least one unit of land measuring 18 acres. Furthermore, one unit too has been proposed by the Ceiling Authority, as their entitlement. They state that Section 9(1) of the Act gives option to the land holders to opt land of its choice within the Ceiling limit without any limitation. The petitioners in support of their submissions have relied upon a decision reported in 1992(2) PLJR 631 (D.B.). They further submit that if the documents applied are within the norms of sale, the Registrar cannot refuse registration. The petitioners have placed reliance on 1988 PLJR 671 (D.B.). The petitioners next contend that registration cannot be refused on the ground that the land has been mortgaged to a Bank or an individual. Even Ceiling Act does not bar sale of mortgaged land or property. 11. The petitioners have placed reliance on 1988 PLJR 671 (D.B.). The petitioners next contend that registration cannot be refused on the ground that the land has been mortgaged to a Bank or an individual. Even Ceiling Act does not bar sale of mortgaged land or property. 11. The petitioners submit that respondents erred in taking stand that the Division Bench of this in CWJC No.2976 of 1985 heard analogous with other cases, debarred the petitioners absolutely from selling land during the Ceiling proceeding. It is the case of the petitioners that the Division Bench quashed the orders of Additional Collector, Collector of the district and Additional Member, Board of Revenue and remanded the matter to the Additional Collector, Motihari for fresh hearing on the point of verification. The Division Bench only restricted sale of land which was declared surplus by the impugned orders. The petitioners state that the land they proposed to sell was not amongst land declared surplus by the impugned orders. 12. The petitioners have also assailed the order dated 18.04.2013 passed by Recovery Officer, employees Provident Fund Organization, Sub-Regional Office, Muzaffarpur (Annexure-20) by which the land which were proposed to be sold has been attached under Section 11(2) of the EPF & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 being malafide. 13. I will come to the last issue, once I have dealt with the challenge to the order of Collector, Motihari dated 18.02.2013 declining permission to sell the proposed land measuring 5 bighas, 5 kathas and 10 dhurs, which was proposed exemption under Section 29(I)(B)(vi). 14. The issue for consideration before this Court is (a) whether a land holder has a right to transfer his land within the Ceiling area even during the pendency of a Ceiling proceeding; (b) Whether a land holder can exercise right of option under Section 9 of the Ceiling Act even in respect of land, which is proposed to be exempted under Section 29(I)(B)(vi). 15. The consideration of the issue would require discussion of the relevant provisions like Sections 4, 5, 9, 29 and definition portion of Ceiling Act, 1961 as well as Section 8B and 11 of E.P.F. Act, 1952 in some detail. 16. The Ceiling Act, 1961 was enacted to provide for fixation of Ceiling on agricultural land and acquisition of surplus land by the State for distribution among the less economical advantaged sections in accordance with Act. 17. 16. The Ceiling Act, 1961 was enacted to provide for fixation of Ceiling on agricultural land and acquisition of surplus land by the State for distribution among the less economical advantaged sections in accordance with Act. 17. The term “Land Holder” has been defined in Section 2(g) to mean a family holding land as raiyat or as under raiyat or a mortgagee of land in possession or holding land permanently settled by Government or lessee of land not resumable by Government. 18. The term “Family” is defined in Section 2 (ee which means and includes a person, his or her spouse and minor children. The explanation to the clause (ee) state that the word person would include any company, institution, trust, association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not. 19. Thus the term “Land Holder” under Section 2 (g) would mean a family and the term “Family” as defined in 2 (ee) would include any company, institution, trust, association or body of individuals. 20. Section 4 prescribes the ceiling area of land for one family consisting for not more than five members as existed on the appointed day namely 09.07.1990. The land was divided into as many as 6 categories for fixation of areas which ranges from Class-1 land which had a ceiling limit of 15 acres to hilly, Sandy, forest land which had a ceiling limit of 45 acres. An area of 18 acres is provided for class-II land; 25 acres for class-III land; 30 acres for class-IV land, 37 ½ acres for class-V land and an area of 45 acres for class-VI land. 21. Besides such ceiling area, a family can hold some more land in terms of exemption provided under Section 29, Chapter XI under certain conditions. The exemption under Section 29 of the Act could continue or survive so long as the purpose mentioned therein in the provision continued to be carried out. For instance, Section 29(2)(a) (1) empowers Government to exempt from operation of Section 5 land up to 100 acres towards Sugar factory holding valid license for production of Sugar Cane seeds. Similarly, Section 29(1)(a)(vi) with which we are concerned too empowers Government to exempt from the operation of Section 5 land required in connection with any other non-agricultural or Industrial purpose, so long as they continue as such. 22. Similarly, Section 29(1)(a)(vi) with which we are concerned too empowers Government to exempt from the operation of Section 5 land required in connection with any other non-agricultural or Industrial purpose, so long as they continue as such. 22. Section 5(1) puts a limitation on a person to hold land in excess of the ceiling area except otherwise provided under the Act. Section 5 reads as follows: 5: No person to hold land in excess of the ceiling area-(1)(i) It shall not be lawful for any family to hold, except otherwise provided under this Act, land in excess of the ceiling area. 23. Section 5(ii) states that no land-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area shall from the commencement of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1972 and till the publication of notification under Section 15, transfer any land held by him except with the previous permission in writing of the Collector, who in appropriate can refuse to give such permission if the same is being done with a malafide intention of defeating the object of this Act. 24. Thus, Section 5 does not put a complete bar on the sale of land even during a ceiling proceeding. However, prior permission of the Collector would be necessary once a ceiling proceeding has started. The Collector could be within his right either to refuse permission for sale of land during the pendency of the ceiling proceeding, if the sale is not made with an intention to defeat the provisions of the Act. In this background, we have to test whether the order of the Collector declining permission to permit registration and sale of the land proposed to be sold by the petitioners is valid or not, to which we would come a little later. 25. The issue to be noticed is whether a “land holder” has an absolute right to add and retain land of his choice within the Ceiling area. Section 9(1)(2) is quoted herein below for easy reference: 9. 25. The issue to be noticed is whether a “land holder” has an absolute right to add and retain land of his choice within the Ceiling area. Section 9(1)(2) is quoted herein below for easy reference: 9. Option of family to select its ceiling area.- (1) Where the area of land held by a family exceeds the ceiling area it shall have, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) and other provisions of this Act the option to select, within the period prescribed in sub-section (3) of Section 10, the land which it desires to retain in accordance with the provisions of Section 5. (2) Where the land held by the land-holder includes land transferred by him in accordance with or in contravention of the provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 5, the land so transferred in accordance with or in contravention of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 shall to the extent of the ceiling area admissible to the land holder, be deemed to have been selected by him for retention within the ceiling area; and where the total area of such land is less than the ceiling area admissible to him, the land holders shall select the balance of ceiling area from his remaining land; 26. The petitioners’ case is that they are entitled to exercise right of option under Section 9 (1) to transfer land proposed to be exempted under Section 29(1)(b)(vi) of the Act as well, as they can exercise right of options in respect of any of their land within the ceiling unit permissible. 27. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioners cannot exercise right of option in respect of land proposed to be exempted under Section 29(1)(b)(vi) or other provisions therein including Section 29(1)(a)(i) of the Act. 28. The Ceiling authority has proposed 34.05 acres of land for approval of State Government for exemption under Section 29(1)(b)(vi) for the purposes of raw materials and manufacturing and 5 bighas, 5 kathas 10 dhurs of land which the petitioners proposed to dispose of, falls within this exemption proposed under Section 29(1)(b)(vi) of the Act, which is quoted herein below: “29(1)(b)(vi): land required in connection with any other non-agricultural or Industrial purpose, to the extent approved by Government, so long as they continue as such;” 29. Section 29 state that the Provisions of this Act shall not apply in cases mentioned therein including Section 29(1)(b)(vi). The opening line of Section 29 is quoted herein below:- 29(1)(a) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to- (i) x x x (ii) x x x (iii) x x x (b)(i) x x x (ii) x x x (iii) x x x (iv) x x x (v) x x x (vi) land required in connection with any other non-agricultural or Industrial purpose, to the extent approved by Government, so long as they continue as such; 30. It is relevant to state that the respondents have also proposed exemption for about 100 acres of land for production of sugar seeds under 29(2)(a)(i) besides 34.05 acres under section 29(1)(b)(vi), which too has a rider that the exemption shall be valid only so long as the purpose mentioned therein continued to be carried out. 31. The issue is whether the petitioner can exercise right of option in respect of this land and whether the order of the Collector declining permission for such land is in accordance with law or not. It would appear from bare perusal of Section 9 (1) that it provides an option to a family to select its area within ceiling area admissible to the land holder. The ceiling limit may vary in area depending upon the category in which the land falls on the appointed day e.g. 09.07.1990 for a family not consisting of more than five members. 32. The meaning of family has been explained in Section 2(g) read with Section 2(ee) which would include a company, institution, trust or body of individuals. 33. I have already stated that upper limit of ceiling area would range from 15 acres in respect of class-1 to 47 acres in respect of clause VI land. The option clause in Section 9 is with respect to ceiling area as stated in section 4 and not under Section 29. 34. Section 29 provides exemption notwithstanding Section 5 which puts a bar on a person to hold land in excess of ceiling area. The exemption granted is with a purpose and would be valid only so long as the purpose mentioned therein continued to be carried out or so long as they continue. 34. Section 29 provides exemption notwithstanding Section 5 which puts a bar on a person to hold land in excess of ceiling area. The exemption granted is with a purpose and would be valid only so long as the purpose mentioned therein continued to be carried out or so long as they continue. The term “so long as they continue as such” incorporated in Section 29(1)(b)(vi) is very significant, as it in no uncertain term point that the exemption is conditional, and not absolute unlike of Ceiling area provided under Section 4 read with Section 5 of Ceiling Act, 1961. Thus if the land exempted under 29(1)(b)(vi) does not continue to sub serve the purpose for which it was been exempted, it would relegate back to the State. The said land was exempted from ceiling area by way of exception to cater to the need of Sugar Mill which was entitled on its own at best for 1 unit under Section 4 & 5. Furthermore, Section 29 begins with the phrase that “the provision of this Act shall not apply to” exemption granted under the provision which too exclude applicability of both Section 5 and option provisions in Section 9(1) as well. 35. I accordingly hold that the right of option mentioned in Section 9 (1) is to be exercised in respect of ceiling area mentioned in Sections 4 and 5 of the ceiling act and not in respect of land exempted or proposed to be exempted under Section 29 of the Act. As such, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Magistrate (respondent no.6) in refusing permission of registration in respect of land exempted under Section 29(I)(b)(vi) of the Act. 36. It would be relevant to notice that way back in 1999, the ceiling authority had recommended to the Government for approval of 34.05 acres of land under Section 29(1)(b)(vi) and 100 acres of land under Section 29(2)(a)(i) to the Government approval. The Government would take appropriate decision in the matter expeditiously. 37. The petitioners have too challenged the order dated 18.04.2013 contained in Annexure-20 of I.A. No.3576 of 2013 of the Recovery Officer of Employees Provident Fund Organization, attaching the very 5 bighas, 5 kathas and 10 dhurs of land as first charge under which the petitioners have proposed to sell and against which it has taken an advance as well. 38. The petitioners have too challenged the order dated 18.04.2013 contained in Annexure-20 of I.A. No.3576 of 2013 of the Recovery Officer of Employees Provident Fund Organization, attaching the very 5 bighas, 5 kathas and 10 dhurs of land as first charge under which the petitioners have proposed to sell and against which it has taken an advance as well. 38. I have held that the petitioners can exercise right of option only with respect to land within the ceiling area, as prescribed in Sections 4 and 5 of the land and not in respect of land exempted or proposed to be exempted under Section 29 of the Act. The petitioner no.1 being a Company is entitled to hold one unit of land. Even assuming that the petitioners have right to sell such land, the respondent Provident Fund Organization was within its right to attach land for recovery of its dues under Section 8-B of the Act. The attachment cannot be faulted on the ground that it was with respect to property proposed to be sold by petitioners. Furthermore, the Recovery Officer admittedly has not attached the dwelling premises or the factory. 39. The attachment of the land is one of the three modes for recovery of the loan as provided under Section 8 B. The other mode open for recovery is the option to arrest or to appoint receiver for the management of the properties. Thus, the prayer to quash the order of attachment dated 18.04.2013 of Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization fails and is hereby rejected. 40. Now I come to next issue whether the petitioners during Ceiling proceeding can dispose and transfer land within the ceiling area prescribed under Section 4 and 5 of the Ceiling Act, 1961. 41. The Ceiling Act has been engrafted for fixation of ceiling for personal cultivation and for acquisition of surplus land by the State for distribution to the under privileged in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. 42. Section 5 (ii) of the Ceiling Act permits “land holder” to sell or transfer land within the ceiling area even during ceiling proceeding with prior permission of the Collector, provided there is no order of the court, tribunal or appropriate authority either auctioning, attaching or restraining sale of such land. 42. Section 5 (ii) of the Ceiling Act permits “land holder” to sell or transfer land within the ceiling area even during ceiling proceeding with prior permission of the Collector, provided there is no order of the court, tribunal or appropriate authority either auctioning, attaching or restraining sale of such land. Such transfer would be deemed to have been made within the ceiling area admissible to the land holder, as per first proviso to Section 5(ii) of the Act. 43. Section 5(ii) at the same time empowers the District Magistrate to refuse permission if proposed sale is being made with a malafide intention of defeating the object of the Act. A District Magistrate under Section 5(ii) can refuse permission if two conditions are satisfied. Firstly; he has to satisfy himself that the sale is being made with a malafide intention and that too for defeating the object of the Act. 44. An intention which is unlawful actuated by bias would not be said to be bonafide or honest. The Collector before refusing permission also has to satisfy that the transfer is being made with the object to defeat the provisions of the Act. What is the object of the Act is not difficult to make out as the answer can be found in the second proviso to Section 5 itself, which is quoted herein bellow: 5: No person to hold land in excess of the ceiling area-(1)(i) It shall not be lawful for any family to hold, except otherwise provided under this Act, land in excess of the ceiling area. 5(ii) No land-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area shall from the commencement of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1972 and till the publication of notification under Section 15, transfer any land held by him except with the previous permission in writing of the Collector, who may refuse to give such permission if he is satisfied for the reasons to be recorded in writing that the transfer is proposed to be made with a malafide intention of defeating the object of this Act. Provided that the transfer of any land made, with the previous permission of the Collector, shall be deemed to have been made from within the ceiling area admissible to the land-holder: Provided also that the transfer of any land beyond the ceiling area admissible to the land holder shall be deemed to have been made with the object of defeating the provisions of the Act. 45. It would thus appear that if a land-holder transfers or proposes to transfer land beyond the ceiling area he would otherwise be entitled to hold, such transfers would “be deemed to have been made with an object of defeating the provisions of the Act”. 46. A Collector under the Ceiling Act can refuse permission only under the conditions prescribed under Section 5(ii) of the Ceiling Act. He neither has inherent power nor he is exercising sovereign power of the State. If transferor proposes to sell land which would far exceed the Ceiling limit admissible to him under Sections 4 and 5 of Ceiling Act, the permission can be refused. 47. The petitioners had next contended that pending ceiling proceedings, the Collector under the Act or a District Magistrate cannot refuse permission for transfer or sale of land within permissible Ceiling limit on the ground that the land is under a mortgage. 48. Before I deal with the issue it would be relevant to point out that sale or purchase of a land which is under a mortgage should be more of a concern for the purchaser than the Collector of the district or the Registering Officer or even the mortgagee, as latter’s interest is well protected under the law as claim on the land is not lost or defeated on its transfer by the mortgagor. The liability to repay the loan merely shifts from one person to the other. The right of mortgage on the land is not diminished by change of ownership. It is trite to take into notice the well established principle that “once a mortgage is always a mortgage”. 49. A Collector under the Ceiling Act is creature of Statute. Being statutory creation, the Collector is a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction. He can exercise only such powers which are expressly provided under the Ceiling Act. He is not a court of “Plenary Jurisdiction” or a “Superior Court”. His powers are circumscribed. He cannot exceed the statutory limits. 50. 49. A Collector under the Ceiling Act is creature of Statute. Being statutory creation, the Collector is a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction. He can exercise only such powers which are expressly provided under the Ceiling Act. He is not a court of “Plenary Jurisdiction” or a “Superior Court”. His powers are circumscribed. He cannot exceed the statutory limits. 50. The statement of law on the point has been succinctly stated in 4th Edition, Volume 10, Para 713 of Halsbury’s Laws of England, which reads as follows:- “713. Limits of jurisdiction. The Chief distinction between superior and inferior courts are found in connection with jurisdiction. Prima facie, no matter is deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of a superior court unless it is expressly shown to be so, while nothing is within the jurisdiction of an inferior Court unless it is expressly shown on the face of the proceedings that the particular matter is within the cognizance of the particular Court”. Note: The underlining is mine for emphasis. 51. This universally accepted principle has been authoritatively reiterated in the case of Anisminic Ltd. Vs. Foreign Compensation Commissioner by House of Lords, reported in 1969 (2) A.C. 147 at 197. “It is a contradiction in terms to create a tribunal with limited jurisdiction and unlimited power to determine such limit at its own will and pleasure- such a tribunal would be autocratic, not limited.” 52. The said judgment has been approvingly relied upon by a Bench of this Court in the case reported in 1996 (2) P.L.J.R. 79 (Para-16 at Page 82). 53. Adapting the ratio of the law noted above, it can safely be held that while exercising the power to grant permission to sell, the Collector cannot wander outside his designated area and must not out step the confines of Section 5(ii) of the Ceiling Act. He has to confine himself within four corners of his province under Section 5 of the Act. 54. The enabling condition for refusal of permission for sale would be his objective satisfaction that the proposed transfer is actuated with malafide intention of defeating the object of this Act. 55. It is well settled that “Proviso” is of the nature of condition or limitation of the main provision. 54. The enabling condition for refusal of permission for sale would be his objective satisfaction that the proposed transfer is actuated with malafide intention of defeating the object of this Act. 55. It is well settled that “Proviso” is of the nature of condition or limitation of the main provision. The second proviso to Section 5(ii) of the Ceiling Act defines the enabling ground for refusal of the permission, namely “with a malafide intention of defeating the object of this Act”. The proviso is key to understand the meaning and scope of the aforesaid terms. It provides that if the proposed transfer involves “any land beyond the ceiling area admissible to the land holders, it shall be deemed to have been made with the object of defeating the provisions of the Act”. No other ground of refusal of permission, express or implied, is to be found therein or in other provisions of Ceiling Act. What is relevant is that the person making a transfer must be a land-holder of the land and not alien to it. If he proposes to sell a land within his ceiling limit, the permission is not to be refused save as provided in 2nd Proviso to Section 5(ii) of the Act. 56. Moreover, mortgage is a charge attached to the land, which is not lost on sale to another person. There is no impediment to its continuation. The collector on the ground that the property is under mortgage would not be within his right to refuse permission of sale under Section 5 (ii) of the Act, as it would be alien to the scope of ground referred to in Section 5 (ii) of the Act. A purchaser is required to be vigilant while purchasing a land / property under the law. There is sufficient provision in law to make an enquiry whether a land is free from encumbrances or not. He can acquire such information from the registration office itself or he can demand the original of the sale deed from the purchaser to eliminate possibility of any hide and seek, as a Bank or a Financial Institution or an individual generally advance loan against mortgage of land after taking into its security the title papers. It will not make any difference if the land is no more held by the original mortgager but has been transferred to another person. It will not make any difference if the land is no more held by the original mortgager but has been transferred to another person. The interest of mortgagee does not get lost, as it can always recover the money by exercising a right of foreclosure or sale in case of default or non-payment. 57. Furthermore, a Bank or secured creditor under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short SARFESI Act) can enforce borrower to discharge full liabilities without aid of Court or Tribunal by exercising power of attachment, taking over of possession and management including auction sale after giving due notice and hearing if payment is not made within time given in the notice. Similarly, the State Financial Corporation Act too confers power on Certificate Officer under Section 29 of the Act to order attachment or take over possession of mortgaged assets again without aid of Court / Tribunal, if the liability is not discharged within time frame. 58. Thus, it is evident that a mortgagee has nothing to lose even if the mortgagor transfers the mortgaged land, as it can always realize its amount from foreclosure and sale of land irrespective of ownership. Similar provision of recovery has been made in Section 8 B of the E.P.F. Act, 1952 to safeguards the interest of workers and employees of an Establishment, Factory or Industry under the Act with respect to Provident Fund deposits and Insurance Schemes, etc. 59. A watchful purchaser would have every chance of discovering whether the land is free from encumbrances or not. An indiligent purchaser who enters into transactions with closed eyes may have to bleed by the nose. It is imperative for a purchaser to find out whether the land is free from encumbrances or not. He has means to discover in most of the cases whether land is free from encumbrance or not. The Ceiling Act does not vest right with a Collector of the District to refuse permission of sale on the ground that the land has been mortgaged to an institution or a Bank etc. but the option is with the purchaser to say “no” to such transaction. 60. While considering the power of the Registrar-cum Collector of the District under the Registration Act, a Division Bench decision in case of Bihar Deed Writers Association and Others Vs. but the option is with the purchaser to say “no” to such transaction. 60. While considering the power of the Registrar-cum Collector of the District under the Registration Act, a Division Bench decision in case of Bihar Deed Writers Association and Others Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, reported in 1988 PLJR 671 , wherein it has been held that power under Section 68 of the Registration Act is an administrative power conferred on the Registrar to exercise superintendence and control over the Sub-Registrars. The Registrar cannot direct the Sub-Registrar not to register a document presented for registration if the document complies with the statutory requirement and formalities. Paragraph 5 of the judgment is quoted herein below for easy reference:- 5. Learned Advocate for the respondents also referred to section 68 of the Registration Act, which empowers the Registrar to superintend and control Sub-Registrars. This power, in our view, is an administrative power conferred on the Registrar to exercise superintendence and control over the Sub-Registrars. The Registrar, in our view, cannot, in exercise of the power under this section, direct the Sub-Registrars not to register a document presented for registration if the document complies with the statutory requirements and formalities.” 61. It would appear from the order of this Court dated 09.10.2012 passed in CWJC No.8734 of 2009 appended as Annexure-14 to the writ application that the Cane Growers and the Labour Unions have also some claims against the petitioners. They apprehend that the petitioners may escape after disposing of their properties leaving them high and dry. The Cane Growers and Labour Unions if aggrieved can always take resort to remedy available under law. There are sufficient safeguards under the law. 62. The District Magistrate in his order has observed that the petitioners have not given any details regarding sale of any land within the admissible limit of the ceiling area of one unit of land which he can hold under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. If the petitioners approach for registration with any such proposal of sale or transfers, the respondents would consider the same in accordance with law. The order dated 18.02.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, East Champaran, contained in Annexure-15, stands modified to the extent discussed in this order. 63. If the petitioners approach for registration with any such proposal of sale or transfers, the respondents would consider the same in accordance with law. The order dated 18.02.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, East Champaran, contained in Annexure-15, stands modified to the extent discussed in this order. 63. As I have observed earlier, a land-holder cannot transfer any land if there is restrain order from the Court, Tribunal or appropriate authority under the relevant Acts or Rules restraining either auctioning, attaching, or restraining the land-holder from disposing the land. Similarly, a District Magistrate can refuse permission if he / she is satisfied that the petitioners are selling land in excess of land that they individually or jointly would be entitled to hold as per their Ceiling Area, otherwise not. 64. The petitioners have next prayed for quashing of Warrant of Arrest purported under Section 8(B) for recovery of arrears of provident fund dues under the E.P.F. Act. The Recovery Officer on receipt of certificate of arrears of dues can recover the amount from the establishment or as the case may be by the employer by one or more modes mentioned herein below: 8. B. Issue of certificate to the Recovery Officer.-(1) Where any amount is in arrear under Section 8, the authorized officer may issue, to the Recovery Officer, a certificate under his signature specifying the amount of arrears and the Recovery Officer, on receipt of such certificate, shall proceed to recover the amount specified therein from the establishment or, as the case may be, the employer by one or more of the modes mentioned below: (a) attachment and sale of the movable or immovable property of the establishment or, as the case may be, the employer; (b) arrest of the employer and his detention in prison; (c) appointing a receiver for the management of the movable or immovable properties of the establishment or, as the case may be, the employer: 65. The Recovery Officer has already attached the property of the establishment / employer. As necessary steps have already been taken for recovery of arrears of Provident Fund dues by issuing an order of attachment, I find it appropriate to quash the order of warrant of arrest issued earlier, in changed circumstances. The Recovery Officer has already attached the property of the establishment / employer. As necessary steps have already been taken for recovery of arrears of Provident Fund dues by issuing an order of attachment, I find it appropriate to quash the order of warrant of arrest issued earlier, in changed circumstances. However, in case, the Recovery Officer is not able to recover its dues from the attachment and sale of movable and immovable property of the establishment, it would be open to take resort to the other measures including issuance of Warrant of Arrest of the employer under the E.P.F. Act. It would be open for the petitioners to take objections that Provident Fund liability of petitioner nos. 1 and 3 cannot be fastened on Chairman under the E.P.F. & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 66. The writ application is disposed of in terms of discussions made and findings recorded therein.