RAJ KUMARI DEVI & Ors. v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and the counsel for private respondents.
#2. It appears, Collector, Bhojpur, Respondent No.2 has refused to impose fine in terms of the provisions contained in Section 32 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as petitioners herein approached him on 18.6.1999 i.e. after more than 17 years of the execution of the deed of gift dated 4.5.1982 asserting that the gift deed was executed without obtaining permission from the Consolidation Officer concerned ignoring the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Act as on the date of execution i.e. 4.5.1982, the register of lands and statement of principles on the basis of which consolidation proceeding is required to be carried out, stood already published under Section 10 of the Act and there was embargo in execution of any transfer document without the permission of the Consolidation Officer.
#3. Aforesaid submission is being refuted by the counsel for the private respondents who states that there may not be any period provided in Section 32 of the Act during which a complaint about the violation of the provisions of Section 5 in regard to execution of any document is to be raised but the complainant must approach the Collector of the district within a reasonable time and period of 17 years by no stretch of imagination can be held to be a period reasonable in time. - 2 -
#4. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the provisions contained in Section 32 of the Act, I am of the view that no specific period for approaching the Collector of the District has been provided under the Act but nonetheless the complainant must approach the Collector within a reasonable time from the date of knowledge of execution of the transfer document. In this connection, counsel for the private respondents further pointed out that all along the petitioners were aware about the execution of gift deed(s) as they are on visiting terms with the private respondents and are visiting the village home at regular intervals but they having not taken any steps during the intervening 17 years, their claim for imposing fine was rightly not examined by the Collector of the District. Aforesaid aspect of the matter should also be considered by the Collector while passing the order. Having heard counsel for the parties, order dated
5.1.2001 passed by the Collector, Bhojpur, Ara, Annexure-1 is set aside and both the petitioners as also the private respondents are directed to appear before the Collector, Bhojpur, Respondent No. 2 whereafter the Collector should call for a report from the Consolidation Officer through the Deputy Director, Consolidation about the publication of the register of the village lands as also the statement of principles for carrying out the consolidation operation and on the basis of the information received as also in the light of the submission about the causes for delay in approaching him shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
#5. This writ application is, accordingly disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha,J.) - 3 -
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.