RAJ KUMAR JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners in all these writ applications are vendees who have purchased a piece of land in Village-Dhurlakh from Respondent No. 5, Kamla Kant Jha through sale deed dated 8.1.1985. An objection was filed by Respondent No. 4 to the sale of the lands in question by Respondent No. 5 in favour of the Petitioners before the Collector, Samastipur. The Collector, Samastipur presuming that Dhurlakh village is under the consolidation proceedings, has held that the sale deed are void and imposed a fine of Rs. 250/- on the Petitioners.

(2.) The Petitioners, in order to substantiate their cases, refer to Annexure-1 series. Annexure-1 is information sought by the Petitioner Raj Kumar Jha, regarding the fact whether consolidation proceedings were initiated or pending in the Dhurlakh village. The answer is that by letter No. 104 issued by the Consolidation Officer, dated 10.5.1984, a proposal was sent, to exempt the village from consolidation proceedings, as it did not come within the target as mentioned by the State Government in the year 1984-85. Similarly, Laxmi Mahto, one of the Petitioners also filed an application for information regarding the pendency of the proceedings in the village. It has been specifically stated that the consolidation proceedings were not initiated with respect to this village, therefore, it is submitted, that no sanction is required for giving information to the Consolidation Officer, that the particular person wishes to transfer, in any manner, the lands belonging to the said person. Annexure-1/C refers to a letter issued by the Revenue and Land Reforms Department which indicates that Village Dhurlakh has been exempted under Section 5(1) of the Consolidation Act from the consolidation proceedings for the year 1986-87.

(3.) Counsel for the Petitioners submits that these documents have not been taken into consideration by the Collector while passing an order under Section 32 of the Act. In fact, it is submitted that till today, no consolidation proceedings is pending in the Village-Dhurlakh and as such the order dated 14.7.1987 passed by the Collector is not justified.