Absence of Notification under Section 26A Does Not Invalidate Gift Deed after Completion of Consolidation Proceedings: Patna High Court Dismisses Writ Petition

"Once the Draft Scheme under Section 13(1) is finalized and certificates are issued under Section 15, and the scheme is confirmed under Section 16, the consolidation proceedings are deemed complete for all practical purposes." — Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application under Section 32 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. The petitioner sought to declare a gift deed executed during the pendency of consolidation proceedings as void. The Court held that despite the absence of a Gazette Notification under Section 26A, the consolidation proceedings were concluded for all practical purposes, and hence, the petition was without merit.

The Court declared, "There being no valid ground for challenging the sale deed and apart from that, once all these exercises are over under Section 13, 15, and 16 of the Act, what remains is only a formality for the Government to issue the Gazette Notification under Section 26A."

The petitioner, Devanand Tiwari, challenged the validity of Gift Deed No. 2778 dated 17.05.2016, executed by his mother Most. Basanti Kuer in favour of his nephew Chandan Kumar, during the subsistence of the consolidation proceedings. The petitioner argued that the deed was void as prior permission from the Consolidation Officer was not obtained.

The petitioner pleaded, "It came to my notice in 2021 through an RTI reply that on the date of the gift deed execution, the area was still under consolidation proceedings, and no permission was taken under Section 5 of the Act." Accordingly, he filed Misc. Case No. 31 of 2021 under Section 32 before the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur.

The Collector rejected the application, observing, "Since Title Suit No. 802 of 2020 is pending in the Civil Court seeking the same relief regarding cancellation of the gift deed, the application under Section 32 is not maintainable."

The first issue considered was whether the Collector still had jurisdiction under Section 32 in the absence of a Gazette Notification under Section 26A of the Act. The Court categorically held, "The Consolidation Proceedings having been concluded for all practical purposes, there being no valid ground for challenging the sale deed," and further added, "Apart from the issuance of formal notification under Section 26A, the consolidation process stands concluded under Sections 13, 15, and 16."

The second issue was whether the writ petition was maintainable when a Title Suit (No. 802 of 2020) was already pending between the parties. The Court held, "The petitioner has already filed Title Suit No. 802 of 2020 for cancellation of the gift deed, and the said civil suit is the proper forum to determine the validity of the said deed."

Addressing the petitioner’s reliance on Lalita Devi v. State of Bihar, the Court clarified, "The facts of the present case are distinguishable since here the consolidation process had already culminated with confirmation under Section 16 way back in 1982, leaving nothing pending except the formality of notification."

The Court, relying on the Full Bench ruling in Panna Devi v. State of Bihar, reiterated, "The mere non-issuance of Gazette Notification under Section 26A does not indefinitely extend the jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 32."

The Court pointed out, "The Draft Scheme was finalized under Section 13(1), certificates were issued under Section 15, and records were confirmed under Section 16. It is a matter of regret that formal Gazette Notifications have not been issued for decades in Bihar, but that does not render the consolidation incomplete."

The Court also took serious note of the delay, observing, "The petitioner’s claim of lack of knowledge till 2021 is not believable, especially when he had already participated in Title Suit No. 522 of 2016 involving the same gift deed." The Court remarked, "There is suppression of material facts by the petitioner, and the prolonged delay itself disentitles him to equitable relief."

On the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the Court observed, "The Civil Court remains the appropriate forum, and parallel proceedings under Section 32 of the Act cannot be permitted."

Dismissing the petition, the Court concluded, "In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for interference in the matter by this Court." The judgment reinforces the principle that mere technical delay by the State in issuing Gazette Notifications does not keep the door open for invoking consolidation jurisdiction indefinitely.

The Court firmly held, "The consolidation proceedings being concluded for all practical purposes, and the matter being sub judice before the Civil Court, no further relief can be granted under Section 32."

Date of Decision: 2nd April 2025