Shambhu Prasad Singh, J.

These three writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. Sk. Musanis petitioner in C. W. J. C. No. 1540 of 1973. His two daughters Bibi Saifunnissa and Bibi Zohra Alam are petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 1678 of 1973 and his five grandsons, Md. Ashfaque, Md. Salauddin, Md. Jawed, Md. Afaque and Md. Mushtaq, are petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 1553 of 1973.

2. The case of the petitioners in all the three writ applications, stated together, is that SK. Musan made an oral gift in respect of the plots as detailed in paragraph five of the application in C.W.J.C. No. 1678 of 1973, in favour of his two aforesaid daughters. The daughters were mutated in the serishta of the landlord and recorded in the revisional survey Record-of-Rights, which started in the year 1952 in the district of Purnea, where the lands are situate. This fact is supported by Annexures 2 and 1 (a) of C.W.J.C. No. 1678 of 1973 and annexures 2 (a) and 2(c) of C.W.J.C. No. 1540 of 1973. Their case further is that St. Musan made gifts of certain lands by separate registered deeds of gift, dated the 1st February, 1972, in favour of his five grandsons. The donees were put in possession of the lands. A news item published on the 5th of November, 1973, in a local newspaper called Purnea Samachar, stated that certain lands in Rupauli Block were distributed by respondent No.6 of C.W J.C. No. 1540 of 197";, the then Revenue Minister of the State. Thereafter the petitioners made enquiries and came to learn that their lands had also been distributed without any justification. The petitioners of C. W. J. C. No. 1678 of 1973 filed Claim Cases under section IS (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act, XII of 1962)-hereinafter referred to as the Act-but they were rejected. The petitioners further learnt that the transfers by way of registered deeds of gift in favour of the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 1553 of 1973 were not treated as valid as they were made without obtaining permission of the Collector. The petitioners, therefore, have filed these three writ applications for issuance of a direction to the respondents to abstain from interfering with the possession of the petitioners on their lands. In C.W. J.C. No. 1553 of 1973, a further prayer has been made for quashing annexure 1 to that writ application publishing details of the surplus lands, declaring that they were required for public purpoi1es under section 15 of the Act. According to the petitioners, it was not open to the respondents to ignore the oral gift in favour of the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 1678 of 1973 and the registered deeds of gift incase of the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 1553 of 1973.

3. Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents in all these cases but in view of the fact that these applications succeed on facts which cannot be challenged and on points of law, it is not necessary to state them.

4. The factum of oral gift in favour of the petitioners of C. W. J. C. No. 1678 of 1973 is established by annexures 1 and 1 (a) to that application which have already been referred to. The originals of those annoxures have also been shown to us. They do establish that there was an oral gift of the plots as mentioned in paragraph five of that writ application in favour of the two petitioners of that case prior to the year 1959. In that view of the matter, it was not open to the respondents to go into the question whether the transfers by way of gift were valid or not; for, under the Act, only such transfers which were made after the 22nd of October. 1959. could be reopened and their validity examination. It has already been so held in the case of Mahabir Prasad v. State of Bihar.

5. So far as the registered deeds of gift in favour of the petitioners of C. W. J. C. No. 1553 of 1973 are concerned, they also cannot be challenged or cancelled by the respondents in view