JUDGMENT : AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. 1. The question posed before this Full Bench arises out of a reference made by a Division Bench vide order 3rd of January, 1987 expressing reservations about the observations made by another Division Bench in the case of Deosagar Singh and Ors. vs. The State reported in, (1979) BBCJ 589 decided on 26.03.1979 describing the same to be unwarranted. Doubting the correctness of the observations as highlighted hereinafter, the Division Bench was of the opinion that the matter requires resolution by a Larger Bench. 2. The correctness that has been doubted is in relation to the provisions of Section 5(1) (ii) and (iii) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 as was amended under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1972 (Bihar Act No. 1 of 1973) which came into force w.e.f. 9th September, 1970. The said provisions were further amended w.e.f. 29.04.1982 under Bihar Act No. 55 of 1982. 3. The reference order was made on 3rd of January, 1987. It is therefore necessary to observe that the answer to be given by this Court would be in relation to the law as it stood then. The interpretation sought is in relation to transactions entered into after 9th of September, 1970. 4. In order to appreciate the issue raised in this reference, it would be apt to quote paragraph 5 and paragraph 6 of the judgment in the case of Deosagar Singh (Supra) which considers the provisions that were in existence when the case was decided on 26.03.1979. The same is extracted here in under:- “There is no dispute on the point that all the sale-deeds which are the subject matter for decision before us were executed after 9.9.1970. A question arises as to whether the transaction would be good or bad in the eye of law and the manner in which it can be declared as such. The same is extracted here in under:- “There is no dispute on the point that all the sale-deeds which are the subject matter for decision before us were executed after 9.9.1970. A question arises as to whether the transaction would be good or bad in the eye of law and the manner in which it can be declared as such. In this connection it will be relevant to examine section 5(1) (ii) & (iii) of the Act which run as follows:- “(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 recording in writing that the transfer is proposed to be made with a mala fide intention of defeating the object of this Act. (iii) The Collector shall have power to make enquiries in respect of any transfer of land by a land holder whether made by a registered instrument or otherwise, made after the 22nd day of October, 1959 and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made, with the object of defeating, or in contravention of the provisions of this Act or for retaining, benami or farzi, land in excess of the ceiling area, the Collector may after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard, annual such transfer and thereupon the land shall be deemed to be held by the transferor for the purposes of determining the ceiling area he may hold under this section.” A reading of clause (ii) shows that if a person holds land in excess of the ceiling area then there is a ban on him to transfer such land without obtaining written previous permission of the Collector. The Collector under the law may, however, refuse to give such permission if he is satisfied for the reasons to be recorded in writing that the transfer proposed to be made is with a mala fide intention for the purposes of defeating the object of the Act. The Collector under the law may, however, refuse to give such permission if he is satisfied for the reasons to be recorded in writing that the transfer proposed to be made is with a mala fide intention for the purposes of defeating the object of the Act. If however the transferor holds no land in excess of the ceiling area the ban imposed under Clause (ii) has no application at all. It is, therefore always a question of fact in each case as to whether the ban operates or not, and for this an enquiry has to be made in respect of each and every transaction which has taken place after 9.9.1970. The matter comes to this that simply because a transaction has been effected after 9.9.1970, it cannot be struck down or ignored. After all it is not possible for a vendee to know always, and that exactly, whether the vendor has any land in excess of the ceiling are or not, because it all depends upon so many factors. Hence investigation before ignoring the sale-deed or annulling the sale deed in called for, before the revenue authority can say finally whether the transaction is good or bad in the eye of law, and unless this is done, I think, the revenue authority cannot be said to have discharged its duties. 6. At the time of argument learned counsel for respondent no. 4 stated that when a particular case comes under Clause (ii) of Section 5(1) of the Act, an enquiry under Clause (iii) of that Section is ruled out. Actually the enquiry is made under Clause (iii) only. This clause calls for an enquiry in respect of any transfer of land, whether made by a registered instrument or otherwise, after 22nd day of October, 1959. In course of this enquiry, if the Collector is satisfied that the transfer was made for the purpose of defeating the provisions of the Act, he may annul that transfer and after annulling that transaction the lands will be deemed to have been held by the transferor. The wordings of clause (iii) are wide enough to include even the transferred land under Clause (iii). The wordings of clause (iii) are wide enough to include even the transferred land under Clause (iii). With respect to the transfers made after 9.9.1970 there will be something more to be seen as to whether previous written permission of the Collector was taken or not and whether the land holder had land in excess of the ceiling area at the time of the transfer or not. It would not, however, be necessary in cases of transfer made after 22.10.1959, and before 9.9.1970. It is also important to note that in Clause (ii) it has been provided as to what would be the effect if the permission has not been taken. It only says that the land holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area shall not transfer any land without prior written permission of the Collector, but if it is done what will be the consequence thereof? The Clause is silent on the point. Therefore, reading Clauses (ii) and (iii) together, there is no doubt left that even in respect of transfer coming within clause (ii), an enquiry under clause (iii) is necessary, and that enquiry has to be made before saying one way or the other in respect of the transfer made even after 9.9.1970.” 5. It is the above highlighted portion of the judgment the correctness whereof has been referred for consideration by the larger Bench. 6. Before we embark upon to render our opinion it would be apt to trace the legislative history of the provisions of Section 5 as it stood in the year 1961. Sub-section (1) (i) (ii) of Section 5 of the 1961 Act is extracted here in under:- “5. No person to hold land in excess of the ceiling area-(1) (i) It shall not be lawful for any person to hold, except as otherwise provided under this Act, land in excess of the ceiling area. Sub-section (1) (i) (ii) of Section 5 of the 1961 Act is extracted here in under:- “5. No person to hold land in excess of the ceiling area-(1) (i) It shall not be lawful for any person to hold, except as otherwise provided under this Act, land in excess of the ceiling area. (ii) If any land-holder while holding land in excess of the ceiling area has, after the 22nd day of October, 1959, transferred any land held by him, except by a registered document for valuable consideration, or if he had after the said date made any gift in contravention of subsection (5), the area of the land so transferred or gifted shall be taken into account in determining the area he may retain under this section as if the said transfer or gift has not been made” 7. The first amendment was brought by Bihar Act No. 1 of 1973 w.e.f. 9th September, 1970 and Section 4 of the Amending Act. Section 4 (a) of the Amending Act is as follows:- “4. Amendment of section 5 of Bihar Act XII of 1962- In section of the said Act:- (a) In sub-section (1) (1) for clause (i) the following clause shall be substituted, namely:- “(i) It shall not be lawful for any family to hold, except as otherwise provided under this Act, land in excess of the ceiling area. Explanation-All lands owned or held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all of the members of such family shall be deemed to be owned or held by the family; and (2) For clause (ii), the following clauses shall be substituted, namely:- “(ii) No land-holder 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 given such permission if he is satisfied for the reasons to be recorded in writing that the transfer is proposed to be made with a mala fide intention of defeating the object of this Act. (iii) The Collector shall have power to make enquiries in respect of any transfer of land by a land holder whether made by a registered instrument or otherwise, made after the 22nd day of October, 1959, and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made, with the object of defeating, or in contravention of the provisions of this Act or for retaining. benami or farzi, land in excess of the ceiling area, the Collector may after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and he heard, annual such transfer and thereupon the land shall be deemed to be held by the transferor for the purposes of determining the ceiling area he may hold under this section;” and the existing clause (iii) shall be renumbered as clause (iv).” 8. It may be mentioned that the reference has been made in this writ petition as on 3rd of January, 1987 when the Act had already been amended a third time through Bihar Act No. 55 of 1982 which came into force w.e.f. 29th of April, 1982. Section 4 of the said Amending Act, 1982 that has brought about further amendments in Section 5(1) is extracted here in under:- “4. Substitution new section for section 5 of Bihar Act XII of 1962:- For section 5 of the said, the following section shall be substituted and shall be deemed always to have been substituted, namely:- 5. No person to hold land in excess of the ceiling area-(1) (i)-It shall not be law-full for nay family to hold, except otherwise provided under this Act, land in excess of the ceiling area. Explanation-All lands owned or held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all of the members of such family shall be deemed to be owned or held by the family. Explanation-All lands owned or held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all of the members of such family shall be deemed to be owned or held by the family. (ii) No land-holder holding in excess of the ceiling area shall, form the commencement of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Bihar Act 1 of 1973) 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 mala fide 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: (iii) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained if any judgment, decree or order of any court or authority, the Collector shall have power to make enquiries in respect of any transfer of land by a landholder whether by a registered instrument or otherwise made after the 22nd day of October, 1959, and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made with the object of defeating or in contravention of the provisions of this Act or for retaining, benami or farzi land in excess of the ceiling area, the Collector may after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard, annul such transfer and thereupon the land shall be deemed to be held by the transfer or for the purposes of determining the ceiling area he may hold under this section: (iv) Land donated by a land-holder under the Bihar Bhoodan Yagyna Act, 1954 (Bihar Act XXII of 1954) to the extent it subsequently vests in the Bhoodan Yagyna Committee constituted under the said Act before the date of the final publication of draft statement under Section 11 of this Act, shall not be taken into account in determining the area he may retain under this section; 9. The above highlighted two provisos as added through Bihar Act No. 55 of 1982 were not noticed when the referring order was made on 03.01.1987. 10. To my mind, the first phrase, that has to be taken notice of in the statutory provisions under question, consists of the opening words of Section 5(1)(ii) which categorically recites that no land holder, if holding land in excess of the ceiling area shall transfer any land held by him except with the previous permission in writing with the Collector. Thus, the first restriction on transfers is in relation to “land in excess of the ceiling area.” The natural corollary of this phrase is that the said restriction shall operate only if the land is in excess of the ceiling area and not otherwise. The second requirement which gives the power to the Collector to grant permission is clearly in relation to the holding of the tenure holder, the transfer whereof may be in excess of the ceiling area. The inference which can be drawn safely is that the previous permission in writing of the Collector is required only if the transfer is in excess of the ceiling area and not otherwise. 11. The Legislative intent to empower the Collector to make inquiries is under sub-section 5(1) (iii) in relation to transfer of land made after 22nd of October, 1959. 12. Thus, there are two types of transactions, one of transfers made after the date of the commencement of the Amendment Act, 1972 (i.e., 09.09.1970) with or without the prior permission of the Collector and the second with regard to the power of the Collector to make inquiries in respect of the transactions made after 22nd day of October, 1959. 13. To my mind, the power to make an inquiry is in respect of all transfers made after 22nd October, 1959 which also includes transfers that have been made even after the Amendment Act, 1972. Section 5(1)(ii) allows transfer of land after the Amendment Act, 1972 only with the previous permission of the Collector which is, however, subject to the rider that the land should be in excess of the ceiling area. The inquiry therefore in all events is confined to only land when it is in excess of the ceiling area, and not otherwise. Section 5(1)(ii) allows transfer of land after the Amendment Act, 1972 only with the previous permission of the Collector which is, however, subject to the rider that the land should be in excess of the ceiling area. The inquiry therefore in all events is confined to only land when it is in excess of the ceiling area, and not otherwise. The Collector, therefore, if embarking upon an inquiry has to have material before him to clothe him with the authority before he proceeds to determine as to whether the land is in excess of ceiling area or not. 14. Having discussed the above it appears that the doubt which was existing in the mind of the Bench when the decision was rendered on 26.03.1979 which has been made a point of reference under the order dated 3rd of January, 1987, is about consequences if a transaction had been made without permission under the then existing provisions. What is apparent that the Legislature quite possibly having noticed the said legal difficulty as observed in the judgment of Deosagar Singh (Supra) decided on 26.03.1979, thought of providing consequences and thereby added the two provisos to Section 5(1) (ii) through the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1982 (Bihar Act No. 55 of 1982). It is for this reason that the omission to notice the said provisos may have led to the reservations expressed in the referring order dated 3rd of January, 1987. The said provisos clearly indicate the consequences of a transfer having been made with the previous permission of the Collector and the transfer having made beyond the ceiling area admissible to a land holder. 15. The referring order further opines that the observations by the Division Bench were unwarranted as to about the consequences of not having taken permission, and the consequential action of inquiry that could be embarked upon by the Collector. The aforesaid doubt has to be understood as explained above that the inquiry is permissible only if the land is in excess of the ceiling area or else there would be no requirement of permission or even an inquiry. The aforesaid doubt has to be understood as explained above that the inquiry is permissible only if the land is in excess of the ceiling area or else there would be no requirement of permission or even an inquiry. The power of the Collector therefore to make an inquiry can commence only if the aforesaid conditions of the land being in excess of the ceiling area or the transaction being in violation of the provision of Section 5 of the Act is fulfilled. The very power of determination therefore is dependent upon the same but the inquiry would be dependent on facts and as observed by the Division Bench in the case of Deosagar Singh (Supra). It is therefore always a question of fact in each case as to whether the transaction is hit by the provisions aforesaid or not. The Collector therefore has to ensure himself on the basis of any cogent material available before him as to whether the case calls for an inquiry or not keeping in view the provisions of the Act as also the facts that may lead to such an inference. Another decision that has been cited at the Bar is the case of Jagdamba Prasad and Ors. vs. State of Bihar reported in, (1998) 2 PLJR 465 where a learned Single Judge of this Court while interpreting the impact of the amendment of 1982 in respect of certain transactions made in the year 1972 in paragraph 15 of the report observed as follows:- “15. In these cases, admittedly, the sale-deeds were executed by land holders in the year 1972 i.e. much prior to the amendment of the provisions of section 5 of the Ceiling Act. Initially, there was no such provision to declare a sale-deed purported to have been made to defeat the provision of law, but after amendment of said provision in the year, 1982, the proviso to section 5(i)(ii) was added therein it was stipulated that the transfer of any land excess to the Ceiling area admissible to land holders shall be deemed to have been made with the object of defeating the provisions of the Act, if such sale-deed was exercised after 9-9-1970. Such amendment having been made in the year 1982, according to me, said amendment is not applicable in the cases of transfer of lands made prior to such amendment but after 9- 91970. Such amendment having been made in the year 1982, according to me, said amendment is not applicable in the cases of transfer of lands made prior to such amendment but after 9- 91970. In such cases, the transfers made after 9-9-1970 but prior to the amendment will be governed by unamended provision of section 5(i) (ii) of the Ceiling Act.” 16. The same also explains that the deeming clause as per the 1982 amending Act would not be attracted in relation to transactions after 09.09.1970 upto the date of amendment. 17. So far as the effect of transaction, if the permission has not been taken in terms of Section 5(1) (ii) is concerned, the same would be clearly dependent upon the nature of the transaction that can be bona fidely saved under the provisions of the Ceiling Act that would depend on the facts of each case as observed above. The transaction cannot be either struck down or ignored unless it can be finally said as to whether the transaction is bona fide or good or bad in the eyes of law. 18. Thus, the observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Deosagar Singh (Supra), the correctness whereof has been doubted under the referring order stands explained as above. The inquiry would be necessary only if the transacted area of the holding is in excess of the ceiling area under the 1961 Act as per the law applicable. 19. The reference is answered accordingly with the above clarifications. The petition be now placed before the learned Single Judge for orders. (Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ) (Per :HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH) I agree. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH) 20. This reference to the Full Bench being made for considering the correctness of the observations of the Division Bench decision of this court rendered in the case of Deosagar Singh and Ors.-Vs-The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in, (1979) BBCJ 589. The order of reference dated 03.01.1987 reads thus: “This application will be heard. Learned S.C.V accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it has been stated that the lands declared surplus have already been distributed to several tenants. Pending final disposal of the application status quo as of this day shall be maintained. Learned S.C.V accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it has been stated that the lands declared surplus have already been distributed to several tenants. Pending final disposal of the application status quo as of this day shall be maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strongly relied upon some observations in a Division Bench decision of this Court in Deosagar Singh Vs. The State, (1979) BBCJ 589 and paragraph no.6 where it has been observed as follows:- “.... It is also important to note that in Clause (ii) it has not been provided as to what would be the effect if the permission has not been taken. It only says that the land holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area shall not transfer any land without prior written permission of the Collector, but if it is done what will be the consequence thereof ? The Clause is silent on the point. Therefore, reading Clause (ii) and (iii) together, there is no doubt left that even in respect of transfer coming within clause (ii), an enquiry under clause (iii) is necessary, and that enquiry has to be made before saying one way or the other in respect of the transfer made even after 09.09.1970.” Prima-facie, there does not appear to be any warrant for these observations. Let this matter be heard by a Full Bench for considering the correctness of the observations quoted above. Issue notice to respondent no.4. Requisites must be filed within one week, failing which this application as against the said respondent shall stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench. After the case is ready for hearing it will be open to the parties to get an early date of hearing fixed.” 21. Issue notice to respondent no.4. Requisites must be filed within one week, failing which this application as against the said respondent shall stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench. After the case is ready for hearing it will be open to the parties to get an early date of hearing fixed.” 21. The ‘fact in issue’ led to this matter is that the father of the petitioners named Satya Narayan Pathak purchased some lands by two different registered sale deeds dated 04.08.1972 and 16.01.1974 from the land holder named Mahanth Ram Ekbal Giri against whom a ceiling proceeding had already been initiated and pending, moreover in contravention of the provision of Clause (ii) of Sub Section (1) of Section 5 of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), which prescribes previous permission in writing of the Collector for the purposes of transfer of land by a land holder holding land in excess of ceiling area, and after conclusion of the ceiling case of the said land holder (transferor), the land so purchased by the father of the petitioners was declared as ‘surplus land’. Whereupon, father of the petitioners filed an application under the then existing Section 15 (3) of the Act, before the court of Deputy Collector Land Reforms who rejected the said objection/claim vide order dated 05.06.1976 on the ground that the purported sale being made after 09.09.1970 without obtaining previous permission for transfer of land from the Collector as engrafted Under Section 5 (1)(ii) of the Act, therefore, transfer so made is illegal. The father of petitioners also filed an appeal against the said order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector but didn’t succeed, there-upon, he filed a revision application before the Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, which also came to be dismissed in default. 22. Be that as it may, as to appreciate the controversy, it would be appropriate to take notice of the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 5(1) of the Act reads as under:- “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 as otherwise provided under this Act, land in excess of ceiling area. Section 5(1) of the Act reads as under:- “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 as otherwise provided under this Act, land in excess of ceiling area. Explanation- All lands owned or held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all of the members of such family shall be deemed to be owned or held by the family. (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 given such permission, if he is satisfied for the reasons to be recorded in writing that the transfer is proposed to be made with a mala fide 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. (iii) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment decree or order of any court or any authority the collector shall have power to make enquiries in respect of any transfer of land by a land holder whether by a registered instrument or otherwise made after the 22nd day of October, 1959, an if he is satisfied that such transfer was made with the object of defeating, or in contravention of the provision of this Act or for retaining Benami or farzi land in excess of the ceiling area, the Collector may after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard, annul such transfer and thereupon the land shall be deemed to held by the transferor for the purpose of determining the ceiling area he may hold under this section. (iv) Land donated by a land holder under the Bihar Bhudan Yagna Act, 1954 (Bihar Act XXII of 1954), to the extent it subsequently vests in the Bhudan Yagna Committee constituted under the said Act before the date of final publication of draft statement under section 11 of this Act, shall not be taken into account in determining the area he may retain under this Section.” 23. Together with the said provision, it would be also necessary to take notice of Section 9 of the Act, which reads thus: “9. Option to family to select its ceiling area.- (1) Where the area of Land held by the 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 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; Provided that where the land so transferred in accordance with or in contravention of clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of section 5 is equal to or more than the ceiling area admissible to him and if because of the selection under sub-section (2) the land-holder’s homestead cannot be retained within his ceiling area, the land-holder may be permitted to hold his homestead subject to a maximum limit of two acres only. (3) Where the land held by the land holder includes land where transfer has been annulled under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 5 but does not include any land transferred in accordance with or in contravention of the provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the land holder shall select to the extent of fifty percent of his ceiling area from the land where transfer has been annulled under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) and shall select the balance of the ceiling area from other lands held by him. (4) Where, however, 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 as well as land whose transfer has been annulled under clause (iii) thereof, the land transferred in accordance with or in contravention of clause (ii) of sub-section(i) of section 5 shall, to the extent not exceeding the ceiling area, be deemed to have been selected by him within his ceiling area first and if this land is less than ceiling area admissible to him, he will select the remaining land to be retained by him within the ceiling area firstly from the land whose transfer has been annulled under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the extent of fifty percent from out of the remaining ceiling area only and the balance will be selected by him from out of the remaining land; Provided further that where the land-holder fails to select land within the stipulated time, it shall be lawful for the collector to allot to the land-holder land equal to the ceiling area to be retained by him under section 5 keeping in accordance with this section.” 24. In the order of this reference some doubt being expressed regarding the correctness of the observations made in paragraph 6 of the decision of Deosagar Singh case (Supra), therefore, for the purposes of proper appreciation of the said observations it would be necessary to reproduce herein the relevant paragraphs of the said decision which clarify the facts of the case together with the issue involved therein, they are as under: “4. Annexure-1 which is the order of the learned Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, Garhwa in all the cases shows that the only ground on which the case were dismissed was that the transactions related to the period after 9.9.1970 and as such under section 5 (i) (iii) of the Act no importance could be attached to it. The order of the Additional Collector contained in Annexure-2 also confirmed the same after taking the same view of the law as taken by the Additional S.D.O. and the appeals were not admitted by him. The Learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, in paragraph-5 of his resolution (Anenxure-3 in all the writ petition) also relied upon the same provisions and held that the four sale deeds have rightly been ignored by the Learned Lower Courts. 6. At the time of argument learned counsel for respondent No. 4 stated that when a particular case comes under clause (ii) of section 5 (i) of the Act, an enquiry under Clause (iii) of that Section is ruled out. Actually the enquiry is made under Clause (iii) only. This clause calls for an enquiry in respect of any transfer of land, whether made by a registered instrument or otherwise, after 22nd day of October, 1959. In course of this enquiry, if the Collector is satisfied that the transfer was made for the purpose of defeating the provisions of the Act, he may annul that transfer and after annulling that transaction the lands will be deemed to have been held by the transferor. The wordings of clause (iii) are wide enough to include even the transferred land under clause (iii). With respect to the transfers made after 9.9.1970 there will be something more to be seen as to whether previous written permission of the Collector was taken or not and whether the land holder had land in excess of the ceiling area at the time of transfer or not. It would not, however, be necessary in case of transfer made after 22.10.1959, and before 9.9.1970. It is also important to note that in Clause (ii) it has not been provided as to what would be the effect if the permission has not been taken. It would not, however, be necessary in case of transfer made after 22.10.1959, and before 9.9.1970. It is also important to note that in Clause (ii) it has not been provided as to what would be the effect if the permission has not been taken. It only says that the land holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area shall not transfer any land without prior written permission of the Collector, but if it is done what will be the consequence there of? The clause is silent on the point. Therefore, reading clauses (ii) and (iii) together there is no doubt left that even in respect of transfer coming within clause (ii) an enquiry under clause (iii) is necessary, and that enquiry has to be made before saying one way or other in respect of the transfer made even after 9.9.1970.” 25. Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Bihar placing his reliance on the said observations of the Division Bench made in case of Deosagar Singh (Supra), further invited attention of this court towards the provision envisaged Under Section 9 (2) of the Act and submitted that the said provision takes notice of both types of situations i.e. transfer of land made by the land holder either in accordance with or in contravention of the provision of Clause (ii) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the Act, and it also stipulates that 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 ceiling area admissible to the land holder, be deemed to have been selected by him for retention within the ceiling area, and where total area of such land is less then the ceiling area admissible to him, the land holder shall select the balance of ceiling area from his remaining land. 26. This rule of interpretation has now firmly been established that the intention of the Legislature must be found by reading the Statute as a whole. The intention of the Legislature assimilates two aspects; in one aspect it carries the concept of ‘meaning’ and in another aspect it conveys the concept of purpose and object, therefore, the process of construction combines both literal and purposive interpretation. The correct interpretation is one that harmonizes the words with the object of the Statute. The intention of the Legislature assimilates two aspects; in one aspect it carries the concept of ‘meaning’ and in another aspect it conveys the concept of purpose and object, therefore, the process of construction combines both literal and purposive interpretation. The correct interpretation is one that harmonizes the words with the object of the Statute. Object of ceiling Act is equitable distribution of land to the landless and it prescribes pre-emptive restriction on transfer of land to achieve that object. 27. From reading of clause (ii) and (iii) of sub section (1) of section 5 together with Section 9 (2) of the Act, it appears that any transfer of land by the land holder holding land in excess of ceiling area made after 09.09.1970 in contravention of Clause (ii) of Sub Section (1) of Section 5 would be a subject matter of an enquiry by the Collector for the purposes of ascertainment of such transfer so made being to the extent of ceiling area admissible to the land holder, and if such transfer of land may be found within the extent of ceiling area of the land holder, in that case section 9 (2) provides that it be deemed to have been selected by him for retention within the ceiling area. 28. Section 5 (1)(ii) of the Act, though restricts transfer of land by a land holder holding land in excess of ceiling area after 09.09.1970 till the publication of notification under Section 15 of the Act but nowhere provides consequence of nullification on failure to comply with the prescribed requirement of permission for sale by the Collector, therefore, permission for transfer of land as engrafted under Section 5 (ii) cannot be interpreted as such requirement, which non-compliance would necessarily make such transfer of land as a void transfer. 29. In the Parent Act of 1961, (Bihar Act XII of 1962) such previous permission of the Collector was not required for the purposes of transfer of land by the land holder, holding land in excess of ceiling area. Section 5 (1) of the Parent Act 1961 reads thus :- “5. No person to hold land in excess of the ceiling area.- (1) (i) It shall not be lawful for any person to hold, except as otherwise provided under this Act, land in excess of the ceiling area. Section 5 (1) of the Parent Act 1961 reads thus :- “5. No person to hold land in excess of the ceiling area.- (1) (i) It shall not be lawful for any person to hold, except as otherwise provided under this Act, land in excess of the ceiling area. (ii) If any land-holder while holding land in excess of the ceiling area has, after the 22nd day of October, 1959, transferred any land held by him, except by a registered document for valuable consideration, or if he had after said date made any gift in contravention of sub-section (5), the area of the land so transferred or gifted shall be taken into account in determining the area he may retain under this section as if the said transfer of gift had not been made. (iii) Land donated by a land-holder under the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 Bihar Act XXII of 1954; to the extent it subsequently vests in the Bhoodan Yagna Committee constituted under the said Act before the date of the final publication of draft statement under section 11 of this Act, shall not be taken into account in determining the area he may retain under this section.” In the year 1973 an amendment in the Act was brought by the Bihar Act No. I of 1973 i.e., Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1972, which deemed to have come into force retrospectively from 9th September, 1970 whereby for Clause (i) (ii) of Section 5 (1) of the Parent Act, following clauses were substituted, as under: “(i) It shall not be lawful for any family to hold, except as otherwise provided under this Act, land in excess of the ceiling area. Explanation - All lands owned or held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all of the members of such family shall be deemed to be owned or held by the family. Explanation - All lands owned or held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all of the members of such family shall be deemed to be owned or held by the family. (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 mala fide intention of defeating the object of this Act. (iii) The Collector shall have power to make enquiries in respect of any transfer of land by a land holder whether made by a registered instrument or otherwise, made after the 22nd day of October, 1959, and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made, with the object of defeating, or in contravention of the provisions of this Act or for retaining, benami or farzi, land in excess of the Ceiling area, the Collector may after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and he heard, annul such transfer and thereupon the land shall be deemed to be held by the transfer for the purposes of determining the ceiling area he may hold under this section. (iv) Land donated by a land-holder under the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 Bihar Act XXII of 1954; to the extent it subsequently vests in the Bhoodan Yagna Committee constituted under the said Act before the date of the final publication of draft statement under section 11 of this Act, shall not be taken into account in determining the area he may retain under this section.” 30. Thereafter again in the year 1982 by virtue of the Bihar Act No 55 of 1982 i.e., Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1982, which deemed to have come into force with effect from 9th April, 1981 Section. 5 of the Act came to be substituted as under: “5. Thereafter again in the year 1982 by virtue of the Bihar Act No 55 of 1982 i.e., Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1982, which deemed to have come into force with effect from 9th April, 1981 Section. 5 of the Act came to be substituted as under: “5. No person to hold land in excess of the ceiling area.- (1) (i) It shall not be lawful for any person to hold, except as otherwise provided under this Act, land in excess of the ceiling area. Explanation: All lands owned or held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all of the members of such family shall be deemed to be owned or held by the family. Explanation: All lands owned or held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all of the members of such family shall be deemed to be owned or held by the family. (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 (Bihar Act 1 of 1973) 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 mala fide 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; (iii) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court of authority, the Collector shall have power to make enqurieis in respect of any transfer of land by a land-holder whether by a registered instrument or otherwise made after the 22nd day of October, 1959, and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made with the object of defeating or in contravention of the provisions of this Act or for retaining, benami or farzi land in excess of the ceiling area, the Collector may after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard, annul such transfer and thereupon the land shall be deemed to be held by the transferor or for the purposes of determining the ceiling area he may hold under this section; (iv) Land donated by a land-holder under the Bihar Bhoodan yagna Act, 1954 (Bihar Act XXII of 1954) to the extent it subsequently vests in the Bhoodan Yagna Committee constituted under the said Act before the date of the final publication of draft statement under section 11 of this Act, shall not be taken into account in determining the area he may retain under this section.” 31. In the case of Jagdamba Prasad and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar reported in, (1998) 2 PLJR 465 Learned Single Bench of this Court held thus :- “15. In these cases, admittedly, the sale-deeds were executed by land holders in the year 1972 i.e. much prior to the amendment of the provisions of section 5 of the Ceiling Act. Initially, there was no such provision to dclare a sale-deed purported to have been made to defeat the provision of law, but after amendment of said provision in the year 1982, the proviso to section 5 (i) (ii) was added wherein it was stipulated that the transfer of any land execs to the Ceiling area admissible to land holders shall be deemed to have been made with the object of defeating the provisions of the Act, if such sale-deed was exercised after 9-9-1970. Such amendment having been made in the year 1982, according to me, said amendment is not applicable in the cases of transfer of lands made prior to such amendment but after 9-9-1970. In such cases, the transfers made after 9-9-1970 but prior to the amendment will be governed by unamended provision of section 5 (i) (ii) of the Ceiling Act. 16. In the case of Deosagar Singh and Ors. V. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in, (1979) BBCJ 589; 1979 BLJ 552 , a Division Bench of this Court held that even with respect to a transfer made after 9-9-1970, the provision of section 5 (i) (iii) is to be followed as the authority is required to nqurie whether such transfer was made to defeat the provision of the Act or it was a Farji transfer. In the present case, as no such notice was issued to the purchasers-petitioners of C.W.J.C Nos. 4262, 4296 and 4311 of 1987, the impugned orders cannot be said to be legal.” 32. From the aforesaid discussion it transpires that such previous permission of the Collector for transfer of land has firstly been introduced in the year 1972, in the Act, as referred above and the proviso appended to Section 5 (1) (ii) of the Act being inserted by Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1982. 33. 33. Though Section 5 (1) (ii) of the Act starts with negative but it does not have necessary meaning of nullifying consequences, as the consequence of non-adherence of the provision is nowhere provided in the Act, apart that Section 9 (2) of the Act provides transfer of land so made by the land holder in contravention of Clause (ii) of Sub Section (1) of Section 5 to the extent of ceiling area admissible to the land holder shall be deemed to have been selected by him for retention within the ceiling area, therefore, in my view, an enquiry by the Collector with regard to such transfer of land made in contravention of Section 5(1)(ii) of the Act is essential for the purposes of determination of admissible ceiling area of the land holder, thereafter, as to make it ascertain whether such transfer of land being made by the land holder within the extent of the ceiling area admissible to him. 34. Thus having gone through the provisions referred above, the discussions and observations made above, I do not find any reason to disagree with the observations made by the Division Bench in paragraph 6 of the decision rendered in the case of Deosagar Singh (Supra) and I also concur with the same.

Mohan Pathak v. Additional Member, Board Of Revenue