The transfer of agricultural land without obtaining permission from the Collector under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, is void.

SHIMPI J.-Petitioner by this special civil application prays that the order dated 27-1-1969 passed by the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, in a revision application filed by the petitioner dismissing his petition whereby he confirmed the order of the Collector under which the petitioner was fined Rs. 200 and he was not granted permission to sell his agricultural lands, be quashed. The facts, in brief, are as under:-

2. Petitioner held agricultural lands situate at village Mohadara, Tahsil Umrer. The old Survey Nos. being 61/1, admeasuring 65 acres and 65 decimals and 45/2, 45/4 and 46 admeasuring 15.22 assessed at Rs. 21.37. In the year 1966 under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, consolidation of agricultural holdings took place at the said village and old Survey No. 61/1 was given a new number being Unit No. 97 while the other three lands Nos. 45/2, 45/4 and 46 were given a new number as Unit No. 50.

3. After this consolidation of holdings took place, the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell these lands some times on 23-5-1966 in favour of certain persons mentioned in the order of the Collector which is Annexure-2 to the petition. He had sold Unit No. 97 admeasuring 65.65 to 7 persons. The total transferred land came to 61.40 acres and 4.25 acres of this Unit remained with him. Though the agreement of sale is not produced along with this petition, it is an admitted fact that the agreement of sale mentions that this Unit was sold to these 7 persons by dividing the holding in between these 7 persons. The total price agreed to be received from each of the transferees was received by the petitioner on the date on which he executed the agreement of sale and on the very day he transferred possession of the land to these transferees. Similarly, Unit No. 50 admeasuring 15.22 acres was agreed to be sold to one Raghoba son of Maroti for Rs.22,830. In his case also an agreement of sale was executed between the parties under which petitioner received the whole consideration of Rs. 22,830 and delivered possession of the holding to the transferee, namely Raghoba son of Maroti. At the hearing of this petition, the agreement of the sale was perused by us and one of the terms which was relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner was that these sales were subject to the permission of the Collector for which an application would be made to the Collector and if permission was refused, then the transferees were to deliver possession of the holdings to the petitioner and the petitioner was to return the amount to them. Pursuant to this agreement, the transferees entered into possession and were in possession of the various portions when an application was made to the Collector by the petitioner on 5-7-1966. The Collector on hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner received the full consideration of the lands in question and he had already transferred his holding to the transferee. Therefore, such a transfer of land was void under section 9 (1) of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, hereinafter would be referred to as the Act. The Collector, therefore, rejected the application for the grant of permission made by the petitioner under Rule 27 of the said Act and fined the petitioner to pay Rs. 200 as stated above.

4. Aggrieved by this order, revision application was filed. For the same reasons, the order of the Collector was upheld by the Commissioner. The Commissioner further observed that there was lacuna in the order of the Collector in so far as there was no clarification whether the transferees should be evicted from the holdings or not under section 9 (3) of the Act. The Commissioner's order gave direction to the Collector, Nagpur, to pass proper orders in the said matter under section 9 (3) of the Act. Aggrieved by this order, the present application is filed.

5. Shri Munshi, who a