Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. As prayed, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in this writ application with regard to provision of law.

3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.09.2005 passed by the Sub Judge I, Hajipur in Execution Case No. 2 of 1994 as contained in Annexure 3, whereby a petition filed under section 4(c) of the Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) seeking declaration that the execution case would abate, has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the concerned execution case has arisen out of Title Suit No. 20 of 1989 which was filed by the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 for enforcement of contract and has been decreed in favour of the respondent no. 1 and the petitioner had been directed to execute the sale deed in his favour failing which the same was to be executed through the process of the court. However, since the sale deed has already been executed in 1997 itself in favour of the respondent no. 1, as the Title Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed, the issue that has remained pending in the Execution Case is only for delivery of possession of the lands that have been transferred through the concerned sale deed in favour of the decree-holder. However, during the pendency of the execution case, a petition had been filed on behalf of the judgment-debtor-petitioner with a prayer to declare that the case would abate in view of the provisions as contained in Section 4(c) of the Act. However, the aforesaid application has been dismissed by the court concerned vide impugned order dated 09.09.2005. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the fact that there has already been notification under section 3 of the Act declaring the intention of the State Government to make scheme for consolidation of holdings and there has not been any notification as yet under Section 26-A declaring closure of the consolidation operation, the execution case would not be maintainable and should have been declared to have abated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that apart from above that the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent no. 1 is itself a void document in view of the fact that the same has been executed without the sanction of the consolidation authority and, thus, delivery of possession cannot be effected in favour of the decree-holder on the strength of the aforesaid void document. It is lastly urged that in view of the language of the Section 4(c) the execution cases would also come under its ambit and thus, would abate.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the execution case was maintainable as the same would not abate in view of the fact that the lis between the parties has already been decided in the Title Suit and nothing remained to be adjudicated as, admittedly, the Title Appeal filed against the judgment and decree has also been dismissed. Therefore, there is no reason why the delivery of possession could not be ordered to be effected in the concerned execution case. From the pleadings as well as submissions made on behalf of the parties the chief issues emerging for determination are as under:-

(i) Whether in view of the provisions as contained in section 4(c) of the Act the concerned execution case would abate ?

(ii) Whether delivery of possession could not be effected in the execution case in view of the claim of the petitioner that no permission was obtained from the concerned Chakbandi authority as per the requirement under the provisions as contained in section 5 of the Act and, thus, the sale deed itself was void?

Issue No. (i):

6. From the application under Section 4(c) of the Act filed before the court below that has been appended as Annexure 1 to this application, the details of the notification under section 3 of the Act d