Case Background
This case arose from a family dispute over ancestral agricultural land in village Silauta, P.S. Sonhan, District Kaimur at Bhabhua. The land in question is recorded as Khata No. 75, Plot No. 15, measuring 1.03 acres.
The common ancestor of the parties, Jawahar Tiwari, died leaving behind his widow, Most. Basanti Kuer, and five sons: Abhyanand Tiwari, Vinodanand Tiwari, Ram Prakash Tiwari, Vivekanand Tiwari and the petitioner, Devanand Tiwari. The disputed land is described as ancestral property of this family.
On 17.05.2016, Gift Deed No. 2778 was executed by Most. Basanti Kuer in favour of her grandson Chandan Kumar (respondent no. 4). The stated reason was that Chandan Kumar and his mother were taking care of her, while other heirs were allegedly not keen to do so.
At that time, consolidation proceedings under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 were in force in the area. It is admitted that no denotification under Section 26A had yet been issued for village Silauta.
In 2021, the petitioner obtained information through the Right to Information Act from the concerned department. By letter dated 08.01.2021, he was informed that on the date of execution of the gift deed, the area had not been denotified under Section 26A and prior permission from the consolidation authority was required for any transfer.
Claiming that he came to know of the gift deed for the first time in 2021, the petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 31 of 2021 before the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur (respondent no. 2) under Section 32 of the Act, seeking a declaration that the gift deed was void and for other reliefs.
In the meantime, civil litigation was also initiated in respect of the same property and gift deed. Title Suit No. 522 of 2016 was filed by one brother, Vivekanand Tiwari, for declaration that Gift Deed No. 2778 of 2016 was null and void and for partition of 1/6th share. The present petitioner filed a written statement in that suit with a counter claim for partition of his alleged 1/6th share.
Later, the petitioner himself filed another civil suit, Title Suit No. 802 of 2020 before the Court of Subordinate Judge-V, Bhabhua, seeking declaration that the same gift deed dated 17.05.2016 was illegal, inoperative and void, along with a claim for partition of 1/5th share.
While Title Suit No. 802 of 2020 was pending, the Collector considered Misc. Case No. 31 of 2021 under Section 32 and, by order dated 22.08.2022, rejected the application on the ground that the title suit between the parties for the same relief was already pending.
Aggrieved by this order of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in CWJC No. 1450 of 2023, seeking quashing of the order dated 22.08.2022.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma, heard the petitioner, the State, and private respondents 3 and 4. The core question was whether the Collector’s refusal to exercise power under Section 32 of the Bihar Consolidation Act, in the face of a pending civil suit and completed consolidation process, was legally sustainable.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the gift deed was executed during the pendency of consolidation proceedings, when prior permission of the Consolidation Officer was mandatory under the Act. Since the village was not denotified under Section 26A as on 17.05.2016, any transfer without permission was void.
To support this, the petitioner relied on the RTI reply dated 08.01.2021, confirming that denotification had not been issued by that date and that permission was required for transfers. In Misc. Case No. 31 of 2021, the Collector had also called for a report from the Consolidation Officer, Bhabhua.
By letter no. 84 dated 18.09.2021, the Consolidation Officer reported that consolidation proceedings were indeed pending in the area on the date of execution of the gift deed. The report further stated that prior permission from the competent authority (Consolidation Officer) was required before executing any deed of transfer.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that despite this clear report, respondent no. 2 ignored it and wrongly declined to decide the legality of the gift deed merely because Title Suit No. 802 of 2020 was pending in the civil court.
The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 16057 of 2019 (Lalita Devi & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), decided on 06.08.2019. In that case, the Court had held that under Section 32 of the Act, the Collector has power to declare a transfer deed void if executed without permission during consolidation proceedings, and that pendency of a civil suit regarding the same deed is not a bar to such determination by the Collector. The order in Lalita Devi was affirmed in LPA No. 1471 of 2019 by order dated 21.12.2022.
Relying on this “settled principle of law”, the petitioner argued that the Collector’s order dated 22.08.2022 was without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, counsel for private respondents 3 and 4 filed a detailed counter affidavit. They challenged the petitioner’s bona fides and the maintainability of the Miscellaneous Case under Section 32.
They stated that the Chak scheme for village Silauta (Thana No. 490) had been confirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sasaram on 01.10.1982, and Chak Khatiyan had been distributed to all raiyats. The disputed Chak Khatiyan (Khata No. 75, Khesra No. 15, 6.28 acres) was allotted to Jawahar Tiwari. According to them, once the Chak scheme and Chak certificates were confirmed, effective consolidation work was over, and failure of the State to issue a formal notification under Section 26A could not penalize villagers.
They argued that in such a situation, no permission under the consolidation law was required for transfer of land. They also pointed out that since 1993, several sale deeds had been executed in village Silauta without such permission, including two sale deeds executed by the petitioner’s full brother, Abhyanand Tiwari, on 28.02.2014 and 14.08.2018, to third parties. No objection had been raised by the petitioner against those transfers.
Private respondents further submitted that the petitioner had long been aware of the gift deed, as shown by his participation in Title Suit No. 522 of 2016, where he filed a written statement and counter claim, seeking partition of 1/6th share and accepting his mother’s 1/6th share. They asserted that the gift deed was genuine, supported by Basanti Kuer’s written statement in Title Suit No. 522 of 2016 and by her statement before the police in Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 599 of 2016.
They argued that the petition under Section 32 filed in 2021 was barred by delay, as the gift deed was executed in 2016, and that the power under Section 32 could not be invoked after such lapse, particularly once consolidation proceedings were effectively concluded.
For this proposition, they relied on the Division Bench judgment in Panna Devi vs. State of Bihar through the Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department and Ors., reported in 2015(4) PLJR 902. The Court in Panna Devi, following a Full Bench decision (2010(2) PLJR 1066) and considering the scheme of the Consolidation Act, held that:
- Once the draft scheme under Section 13(1) is published, objections decided, Chak certificates issued under Section 15, and records altered under Section 16, consolidation proceedings are practically over.
- Issuance of notification under Section 26A is largely a formality once these stages are completed.
- Even if the State does not issue the Section 26A notification for years, the Collector should not exercise powers under Section 32 after an unreasonable delay.
- Statutory powers without express limitation must be exercised within a “reasonable time” and not after undue delay.
Panna Devi also emphasized that successors-in-interest cannot ordinarily be permitted to challenge the valid actions of their ancestors after long gaps, especially when they are bound by those acts and there is no genuine defect in authority.
Applying this reasoning, private respondents contended that since the Chak scheme for the village had been finalized in 1982, and Chak certificates issued, consolidation operations had been concluded “for all practical purposes”. In such circumstances, they argued, the bar under Section 5 and the voidness under Section 32 had little application decades later, and the Collector rightly declined to interfere.
They further pointed out that Title Suit No. 802 of 2020, in which the petitioner sought the same relief of declaring the gift deed void and partition, had itself been rejected on 05.07.2023 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. They alleged that the petitioner suppressed the fact of dismissal of that civil suit and the appeal, while pressing his petition under Section 32.
The High Court, after hearing both sides and perusing the records, particularly noted the Division Bench judgment in LPA No. 375 of 2010 (Panna Devi). Relying on that decision, the Court observed that once the processes under Sections 13, 15 and 16 are completed and Chak certificates are issued, consolidation proceedings are deemed concluded. Only the formality of Section 26A notification remains.
The Court also recorded that in the order dated 22.08.2022, respondent no. 2 (Collector) had himself observed that consolidation proceedings stood concluded for all practical purposes, but that notification under Section 26(ka) (Section 26A) had not been issued due to technical reasons. The Collector also took note that the petitioner had already filed Title Suit No. 802 of 2020 for cancellation of the same gift deed and that the suit was pending between the same parties for the same relief.
On this combined reasoning, the High Court held that there was no valid ground to interfere with the Collector’s order. It concluded that no case was made out for exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the order dated 22.08.2022 in Misc. Case No. 31 of 2021 was left undisturbed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for landholders and families in Bihar whose villages have undergone consolidation many years ago but have not yet been formally denotified under Section 26A of the Bihar Consolidation Act.
The Patna High Court has reaffirmed that where consolidation work has effectively ended—Chak schemes finalized, certificates issued, and records corrected—the mere absence of a Section 26A notification does not, by itself, allow parties to challenge transfers years later by invoking Section 32.
The decision also shows that if a person has already gone to the civil court about a deed and sought partition, they cannot lightly use the Collector’s powers under Section 32 as a parallel route, especially when the consolidation process is long over. Multiple remedies for the same relief, without full disclosure, are viewed with suspicion.
For families, the case underlines that disputes over ancestral land and gift deeds should be addressed promptly and in the proper forum. Delayed challenges after decades of settled arrangements, or after other family members have freely sold land, are unlikely to succeed.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can the Collector exercise power under Section 32 of the Bihar Consolidation Act to declare a gift deed void when consolidation operations in the village have been completed in all practical respects, but the area has not yet been denotified under Section 26A?
Answer: No interference is warranted at this stage. Following the reasoning in Panna Devi (LPA No. 375 of 2010), once the scheme is finalized under Sections 13, 15 and 16, consolidation proceedings are practically over, and the Collector should not intervene after such completion merely because formal denotification under Section 26A has not taken place. -
Issue: Is the pendency or filing of a civil suit seeking declaration that a deed is void and for partition a relevant factor for the Collector, and can the High Court interfere with the Collector’s refusal to proceed under Section 32 on that ground?
Answer: Yes, the existence of a civil suit for the same relief is a relevant factor. Here, the Collector noted that Title Suit No. 802 of 2020 concerned the same gift deed and relief. The High Court found no justification to disturb the Collector’s decision and dismissed the writ petition. -
Issue: Does the mere non-issuance of a Section 26A notification, decades after finalization of the Chak scheme, allow belated challenges to old or recent transfers under Section 32?
Answer: No. Consistent with Panna Devi, the Court held that when consolidation has effectively concluded, the lack of Section 26A notification is only a technical formality and does not reopen or extend Section 32 powers indefinitely.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Panna Devi vs. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department and Ors., 2015(4) PLJR 902 (Division Bench, following Full Bench reported in 2010(2) PLJR 1066).
- State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha, AIR 1969 SC 1297 (on reasonable time for exercise of revisional powers).
- Other Supreme Court decisions referred within Panna Devi regarding “reasonable time” for exercise of statutory or revisional powers, including (1984) 1 SCC 125, (2002) 4 SCC 188, (2006) 8 SCC 502, and (2015) 3 SCC 695, as summarized in the extracted paragraphs.
- LPA No. 375 of 2010 (Panna Devi), order dated 01.07.2015.
- CWJC No. 16057 of 2019 (Lalita Devi & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), order dated 06.08.2019, and LPA No. 1471 of 2019, order dated 21.12.2022 (cited by the petitioner, though the High Court’s final reasoning rests on Panna Devi).
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1450 of 2023
Case Title: Devanand Tiwari vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 (2) PLJR 587
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma
Date of Judgment: 02.04.2025
Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Parth Gaurav, Advocate
For the State (Respondent No. 1 & 2): Mr. Navnit Kumar, AC to GP-18
For Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: Shri Devendra Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate; Mr. Akhouri Vipin Bihari Shrivastava, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate passed in Misc. Case No. 31 of 2021 under Section 32 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956.
Impugned Order: Order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua, in Misc. Case No. 31 of 2021, rejecting the petitioner’s application under Section 32 of the Act.
Outcome: Writ petition dismissed. No interference with the Collector’s order.
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment in CWJC No. 1450 of 2023
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
