Barin Ghosh and Rekha Kumari JJ.

1. The respondents-writ petitioners in Year 1987-88 approached the revenue authorities seeking to register their frames in the revenue records in respect of the lands, being the subject matter of the writ petition, as raiyats. In order to establish that they were entitled to be recognized as raiyats of the lands in question, the writ petitioners-respondents relied upon receipts issued in the Year 1943 by or on behalf of Hathua Raj. The receipts acknowledged receipt of payment of money for settlement of the lands in question. The request so made by the writ petitionersrespondents was accepted and, accordingly, the writ petitioners-respondents were entered in Register II as persons entitled to pay revenue in respect of the lands in question.

2. The moment this happened, people of the locality including the appellants before us lodged protest. At the instance of the Appellant No. 1, a case was started for cancellation of recording of the names of the writ petitioners in Register II. While this succeeded before the authorities under the Act, the same was defeated when the actions of the authorities were challenged by the writ petitioners-respondents by filing a writ petition in this Court registered as CWJC No. 5841/1993. The orders passed by the revenue authorities to delete the names of the writ petitioners-respondents from Register II were quashed by this Court in the said writ petition by an order dated 5th July, 1993. While doing so, this Court felt that the only way left for the authorities concerned to deal with the subject claim of the writ petitioners-respondents can be found from Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 which is as under:

"4(h). The Collector shall have power to make inquiries in respect of any transfer including the settlement or lease of any land comprised in such estate or tenure or the transfer of any kind of interest in any building used primarily as office or cutchery for the collection of rent of such estate or tenure or part thereof, and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made at any time after the first day of January, 1946, with the object of defeating any provisions of this Act or causing loss to the State or obtaining higher compensation thereunder, the Collector may, after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard annul such transfer, dispossess the person claiming it and take possession of such property on such terms as may appear to the Collector to be fair and equitable: Provided that an appeal against an order of the Collector under this clause if preferred within sixty days of such order, shall lie to the prescribed authority not below the rank of the Collector of a district who shall dispose of the same according to the prescribed procedure: Provided further that no order annulling a transfer shall take effect nor shall possession be taken in pursuance of it unless such an order has been confirmed by the State Government."

3. The appellants, who were parties to the said writ petition, permitted the order so passed by this Court in the said writ petition to reach its finality. As a result of the mandate of this Court given in the said writ petition, the claim of the writ petitioners-respondents could only be interfered with provided the Collector was authorised to take steps in terms of Sec. 4(h) of the Act.

4. The Collector purported to initiate a proceeding under Sec. 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 . While doing so, the Collector heard the appellants as well as the writ petitioners-respondents. On principle he held that the recording of the writ petitioners-respondents as raiyats of the lands in question in Register II was unauthorized. He. therefore, purported to do what he was prevented from doing by the previous order of this Court which was binding on him. While considering the respective submissions he recorded the submission of the appellants that the lands in question are public lan