Bindeshwary Ray And Anr vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned GP 15 for the State.

The petitioners have moved the Court for the following relief:

"That the present application is being file for quashing the order dated 04.08.1995 passed by the Collector, Vaishali, in R. Case No.29/95-96 (as contained in Annexure-2) whereby and whereunder the learned Collector was pleased to allow the petition under Section 32 of the Consolidation Act against the Father of the plaintiff of T.S. No.73/2019."

The brief facts of the case is that the respondent no. 5 executed a sale deed in favour of the respondent no. 4 on 08.04.1994. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 executed a sale deed for the land in question, in favour of the petitioners on 05.05.1995. The respondent no. 3 filed an application under Section 32 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, alleging that the sale deed dated 08.04.1994 was done without seeking permission. The Collector, Vaishali, by order dated 04.08.1995 in Case No. R-29/95-96 declared the sale deed in favour of the respondent no. 4 to be null and void and also imposed cost of rupees two hundred. Thereafter, respondent no.6, who is son of the respondent no. 5, filed Title Suit No.73 of 2019 before the Sub Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, against the petitioners and others for declaration of his title and possession besides ancillary reliefs, which is still pending.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the proceeding before the Collector, Vaishali, they were not made party despite the sale deed having been executed in their favour much prior to institution of the proceeding. It was further submitted that the petitioners were unaware of the order impugned till they got notice in the Title Suit. Learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the Collector without hearing the petitioners itself is a nullity in the eyes of law and requires interference.

Learned counsel for the State submitted that as of now, there is no adverse order with regard to the sale deed in favour of the petitioners. Thus, it was submitted that ultimately the matter has to be sorted out before the Civil Court and once Title Suit No.73 of 2019 is already pending, in which the petitioners are also party, they should pursue the same.

After considering the matter, the Court finds substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the State. Now, when there is a substantive Title Suit pending between the parties and, that too, specifically for seeking relief of declaration of title and possession, all points available to the petitioners can very well be placed before the Court for complete adjudication in the matter.

In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed off with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the points available to them, including those taken in the present writ application, which shall be considered on their own merit, in accordance with law, by the Court below, without being prejudiced by the present order.