HIGH COURT OF PATNA
S.N. Jha, J.
Sitaram Singh – Petitioner
versus
The State of Bihar & Others – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3703 of 1995
Decided On : 21.9.1995
BIHAR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDING AND PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 5, 32 - TRANSFER OF LAND WITHOUT SANCTION - VOID - FINE IMPOSED - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the validity of the order imposing a fine for executing a sale deed without sanction under Section 5 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the transfer of land without sanction under Section 5 was void and the fine imposed was valid.
Issues: Whether the transfer of land without sanction under Section 5 was void.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 5 and 32 of the Act and held that the bar on transfer of land without sanction applied to all lands in the notified area, including those excluded from the consolidation scheme under Section 9A.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the validity of the order imposing the fine.
S.N. Jha, J. - The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order of the Collector, Samastipur in case No. 521 of 1989 imposing a fine of Rs. 250/- on respondent no. 4 Kapildeo Singh for having executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner without sanction of the authority under Section 5 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 ('the Act' in short) on 16.10.84, holding that the transfer was in violation of the provision of Section 5.
2. The petitioners purchased 13 Kathas of land of C.S. Plot No. 1172 corresponding to now R.S. Plot Nos. 1498 and 1500 from respondent 110. 4 who later transferred a portion of the same very land in favour of respondent nos. 5 and 6 herein. This naturally led to a dispute between the parties which has resulted in the impugned order.
3. Before adverting to the point in controversy it would be appropriate to notice the provisions of Sections 5 and 32 of the Act which are as follows :
"5. No transfer without sanction. - (1) After the date of publication of preparation of register of lands and statement of principles under sub- section (1) of Section 10 no person shall transfer any land in the notified area by way of sale, gift, exchange, or partition without the previous sanction of the Consolidation Officer and if the sanction is granted, such transfer or partition, as the case may be shall be, subject to the rights and liabilities attached to the land under the scheme of consolidation prepared with respect to that area.
(2) The provision of sub-section (1) shall take effect from the date the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3 has been issued."
32. Transfer of lands prohibited.-The transfer of any land or fragment contrary to the provisions of this Act shall be void; and the owner of any land, so transferred shall be liable to pay such fine, not exceeding two hundred and fifty rupees, as the Collector of the district may, subject to the general orders of the State Government, direct."
From a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions it would appear that no person shall transfer any land in the notified area by way of sale, gift, exchange or partition without the previous sanction of the Consolidation Officer after the date of publication of preparation of register of lands and statement of principles under Section 10 (1) of the Act. If such a transfer is made in contravention of the bar, as per Section 32 the same will be void exposing the transferor to imposition of fine not exceeding Rs. 250/- by the Collector.
4. On general principle there can be no doubt that any document which is rendered void by law is void ab initio and the same is not required to be invalidated by any order of court, only a declaration to that effect is to be made. Of course, such a declaration can be made only after a finding is recorded that the transfer was made in contravention of the substantive provision of Section 5. The question for consideration is whether the bar of Section 5 was applicable to the impugned transfer or not.
5. It is not in dispute that the register of lands and statement of principles as contemplated by Sections 10 (1) and 9A of the Act was published prior to the transfer. According to the petitioner, however, by reason of the exclusion of the land under Section 9A from the purview of the consolidation scheme, the land was no more amenable to the mischief of Section 5 and therefore it was not obligatory for transferee to seek any sanction there under. In view of the submission the provision of Section 9A may be noticed which runs as herein-below:
"9A. Preparation of statement of principles.- The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall prepare after considering the Opinion of the Village Advisory Committee and such raiyats as may be available in respect of each unit under consolidation operations, a statement in the prescribed manner (hereinafter called the statement of principles) setting forth the principles to be followed in carrying out
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.