http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1364 of 1999

PETITIONER: ASHARAFI SINGH                                    

RESPONDENT: KAPILDEO RAI(DEAD) AND OTHERS                  

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/09/2006

BENCH: Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN & A.K.MATHUR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN, J.  

       Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of both sides.         The counsel for the appellant argued only one contention before the  High Court that the land in question does not come within the provisions of  Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956  (for short ‘the Act’) inasmuch as the appellant had purchased the land in  question through registered sale deed dt.12.01.1983 and by Notification  dt.09.01.1978, the village where the land is located has come within the  jurisdiction of the Patna Regional Development Authority and, therefore, Bihar  Consolidation of Holdings  and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 has no  application.  The said contention was reiterated by the learned counsel for the  appellant before us.  The said contention, in our view, has no force.  Section  2(9) of  Bihar Consolidation of Holdings  and Prevention of Fragmentation Act,  1956 defines the "land" which means agricultural lands and includes  horticultural land, kharaur land, land with bamboo clumps, pasture land,  cultivable waste land, home steads, tanks, wells and water-channels.  The  definition of "land" in Section 2(9) of the Act was considered by the High Court  of Patna in Mirza Sulaiman Beg & Ors vs.Harihar Mahto & Ors. reported in 1985  (33) Bihar Law Journal Reports 585.  The Bench was also of the view that  confining the land to being strictly agricultural land in nature, in fact, extends it  to matters and things, which cannot strictly be labelled as  ’agricultural land’ -  for instance, includes ’homestead’, and, by itself, a homestead was not an  agricultural land stricto sensu.  In our opinion, Section 2(9) of the Act has  emphatic and also couched in very wide language.  That being so, we are of  the opinion that there is no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Division  Bench affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge.           In the instant case, Notification was issued on 26.11.1970.  Section 5 of  the Act deals with land not be transferred without sanction.  This Section reads  as under :-         "5.  Land not to be transferred without sanction.- During the period  commencing from the date of the publication of the notification under  Section 3 to the date when the scheme if consolidation comes into  operation in any notified area, in person shall transfer or partition any  land in such area except with the previous sanction of the  consolidation officer and if the sanction is granted, the transfer of  partition, as the case may be, shall be subject to the rights and  liabilities attached to the term under the scheme of consolidation in  respect of such area."          The Section is very clear. The transfer or partition, as the case may be,  shall be subject to the rights and liabilities attached to the term under the  scheme of consolidation in respect of such area.  In the instant case, the sale  was made in favour of the appellant on 12.01.1983 which is after the  Notification.  It is also pertinent to notice that the consolidation proceedings  were over on 10.1.1975 and 20.2.1975.  The learned Single Judge also has  elaborately considered the entire matter placed before him and came to the  right conclusion which was rightly affirmed by the Division Bench.  We,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Division  Bench of the High Court.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed.  There shall be  no order as to costs.