S.B.Sinha, J.

1. As both these writ applications involve common question of law and facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. By these writ applications, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 4-3-1980 passed by the Additional Collector in Appeal No. 16 of 1974 as contained in Annexure-4 to this writ application, and also for quashing the orders dated 19-8-80 and 23-3-82 passed by the learned Commissioner, Bhagalpur in Munger revision No. 35 of 1980-81 as contained in Annexure 5 and 7 to this writ application.

3. The aforesaid respondents passed the aforesaid orders in purported exercise of their power under Sec. 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. For the purpose of disposal of these writ applications, the facts as narrated in C, W. J. C. 2138/82 are being considered. The petitioner allegedly took settlement of 11 dhurs of land in plot No. 396 khata No. 96 situate in village Rangaon Kaprichak, P. S., Tarapur, District Munger. The aforesaid settlement was made by the ex-landlord of the Putne Estate. Pursuant to the said settlement a rent receipt was issued in favour of petitioner on 20-9-1945. According to the petitioner after taking settlement of the land, he constructed Pucca house and has been carrying on business in a portion thereof and was using the rest for the residential purpose on 11-12-70, D. C. L. R., Munger, (respondent No. 3) issued a notice to show cause upon the petitioner directing him to show cause as to why a proceeding under Sec. 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act shall not be initiated against him. Pursuant to the aforementioned show cause notice the petitioner appeared for his show cause and filed documents in support of his case. The petitioner has asserted that after vesting of the zamindaris in the State of Bihar, a return was filed by the ex-landlord and the factum of the settlement made in favour of the petitioner has been mentioned therein and pursuant thereto the petitioners name was entered into the Register-II maintained by the State of Bihar and since then it had been accepting rent from the petitioner. By an order dated 29-3-74 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application on the respondent No. 3 in the said proceedings allegedly held that as the land was settled after 1-1-1946 and, therefore, he has jurisdiction to initiate proceeding under Sec. 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act.

4. The petitioner against the aforementioned order preferred appeal and on 8-3-1980 although record was not received from the court of D.C.L.R., Munger (Respondent No. 3), the respondent No. 2 dismissed the said appeal by saying that he bad perused the lower court records and come to the conclusion that the land belonged to the Government. A copy of this order is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application. The petitioner further filed, another application and by order dated 19-8-80, respondent No. 2 dismissed this appeal by saying that the land is connected with Kamaria Dharmshala and, therefore, the same is Government land, this order is contained in Annexure-5 to this writ application. The petitioner has annexed the entire copy of the order for the purpose of showing that the records were not received from the D. C. L. R. and as such the finding of the Additional Collector in the aforementioned order contained an error of record. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred a revision application before the Commissioner, Bhagalpur against the aforesaid orders dated 4-3-80 and 19-8-80 which are contained in Annexure 4 and 5 to this writ application. The respondent No. 1 by an order dated 22-3-82 although held that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to say that he had perused the lower court records as the some were not available but still be dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the aforementioned i