The satisfaction of the Collector under Sec. 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, must be construed as "reasonably satisfied," and therefore, the finding of the Collector cannot be a subjective or arbitrary finding but must be based upon adequate material.

Ramaswami, J.

1. In this case the petitioners Sri Chandre-shwari Prasad Narain Deo and seven others have moved the High Court for grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of the Additional Subdivisional Officer of Giridih dated 18-2-1954, acting under Sec. 4(h), Bihar Land Reforms Act (Bihar Act 30 of 1950) and cancelling five khorposh grants made by respondent 2, Maharaj Maheshwari Prasad Narain Deo, in favour of the petitioners in pursuance of a compromise decree dated 3-4-1948.

2. The petitioners are members of Dhanwar Raj family in the district of Hazaribagh, Petitioners 1 to 3 are the sons of Raja Iswari Prasad Narain Deo, and petitioners 5 to 8 are the sons of Kumar Harihar Prasad Narain Deo. Petitioner 4 is the widow of Raja Iswari Prasad Narain Deo. In the year 1917 Harihar Prasad Narain Deo along with his sons brought a suit for partition against Iswari Prasad Narain Deo claiming that he was entitled to half share in Dhanwar Estate.

The suit was dismissed on the ground that the estate was impartible and governed by the rule of lineal promogeniture and the junior members of the family were entitled only to maintenance and had no title to a share in the esiate. Against the decision of the Subordinate Judge the plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the High Court in First Appeal No. 181 of 1925. The appeal was decided by the High Court on 9-7-1928 and it was held by the High Court that the Dhanwar Raj Estate was impartible but the plaintiffs were entitled to a share of the self-acquired properties of Ran Bahadur Narain Deo.

The case was, therefore, remanded by the High Court to the learned Subordinate Judge for a finding as to what were the immoveable properties acquired in the name of Ran Bahadur Narain Deo and whether there was incorporation of these properties with the properties comprised in the impartible estate. The learned Subordinate Judge held on enquiry that a number of villages and other immoveable properties were the self-acquired properties of Ran Baha-dur Narain Deo and were not incorporated in the impartible estate.

After receipt of the report, the High Court made a direction on 26-9-1931 that these properties should be partitioned. The plaintiffs took an appeal to the Judicial Committee from the judgment of the High Court, namely Privy Council Appeal No. 87 of 1934. The appeal was heard and allowed by the Judicial Committee in part and it was held that the plaintiffs were entitled to a partition of certain other proper-ties, namely, Telonari and Falangi. The Judicial Committee further ordered that there should be an investigation as to whether some other villages to be specified by the plain-tiffs from lists A and B of the plaint were self-acquired properties of Ran Bahadur Narain Deo and were liable to be partitioned. After the case came back on remand, the parties entered into a compromise. It was agreed that the plaintiffs should give up their claims to the partition of villages other than Telonari and Paiangi and they should also give up all claims to immoveable and moveable properties which would be held partible in the final decree, In lieu thereof Maharaj Mahestiwari Prasad Narain Deo agreed to give Rs. 125/- per month and a Bhandar called Balwagarh as maintenance allowance during the period the estate was managed by the Encumbered Estates Department and on release the Raja Saheb agreed to grant properties yielding an income of Rs. 5,000.00 a year and also a Bhandar appertaining thereto. In pursuance of this compromise a petition was filed by the plaintiffs on 16-4-1937 in Court stating that excepting the villages which were uptill then held to be partible, there was no other property liable to be partitioned as self-acquisition of Ran Bahadur Narain Deo.

The plaintiffs also accepted the report of the Pleader Commissioner as regards the quantum of the debt as correct. Maharaja Maheshwari Prasad Narain Deo also gave to the petitioners a letter dated 23-4-1937 under his seal