The Collector has no jurisdiction to annul a settlement made prior to 1.1.1946 under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.

N. Pandey, J. - The first writ petition was filed for quashing the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Manjhaul dated 14.7.1993 in Case No.1 of 1992-93, whereby and where under, after recalling the order of Anchal Adhikari dated 20.11.1992 (Annexure-2), the proceeding was restarted under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short 'the Act'). A prayer was also made to quash the notice. contained in Annexure 1/A, whereby, the petitioner was asked to appear and produce relevant documents in support of his case. But during pendency of the aforementioned case, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector by his order dated 20.12.1993, cancelled the settlement of the petitioner as also Jamabandi of the land, C.W.J.C. No. 51 of 1994 was filed, challenging the validity of such orders.

2. Dispute in this case relates to a piece of land measuring 6 Kattha of Plot No. 5480, appertaining to Khata No. 3349 Thana No. 1901, Mauza- Manjhaul. The claim of the petitioner is that the land in question was settled with his father by the Ex-landlord through a Hukumnama, executed on 19th September. 1945 after payment of nazrana and till vesting of Jamindari, rent receipts were also granted. The Ex-landlord also submitted return in the name of petitioner's father and, accordingly, Register II was opened. The petitioner thereafter, continuously paid rent to the State upto the year, 1993 and got rent receipts, copies of such receipts from 1946 to 1993 have been marked as Annexures 5 and 6 series, whereas the copy of Register II is Annexure 7. At no. point of time there was any challenge by the State, while recording the land in petitioner's name.

3. The further case is that in the year, 1987, Land Encroachment Case No. 10 of 1987-88 was started by the State Government against the petitioner, alleging that he had encroached upon the lands in dispute. The said proceeding was ultimately dropped on 9.7.1987 by the order of the Anchal Adhikari (respondent no. 5) on the ground that petitioner was the settlee of the land from the Ex-Landlord on the basis of Hukumnama. A copy of the aforesaid order is Annexure-8 to the rejoinder affidavit. But no appeal or revision against the said order was ever preferred by the State Government before the higher authority.

4. It is further stated that case of petitioner's continuous possession after settlement of the land was also accepted by this Court, while disposing of Cr. Revision No. 1949 of 1971 vide order dated 24.11.1972 (Annexure-10), which was filed against an order, passed in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court thus, having affirmed the order of the magistrate, dismissed the revision petition. Therefore, from the facts noticed above, it is evident that petitioner's father had obtained this land on settlement through Hukumnama, executed by Ex-landlord much before 1.1.1946.

5. The further submission is that even the Anchal Adhikari on the previous occasion after hearing all the relevant parties by order dated 20.11.1992 had dropped the proceeding under Section- 4(h) on the ground that Hukumnama was executed prior to 1.1.1946. Because, as per the settled view of the court through several pronouncements, no proceeding under Section 4(h) can be started with regard to a settlement, which had taken place prior to 1.1.1946 by Ex-landlord through Hukumnama.

6. Apart from what has been stated above, even the reports of Anchal Adhikari dated 1.10.1993 and Karmchari dated 20.4.1993 were also in favour of the petitioner to show that he was in• possession of the land on the basis of settlement through Hukumnama. The State Government also besides issuing rent receipts, had granted licence in favour of the petitioner to run a shop over the land in dispute. Therefore, it is wrong to state that part of the land is Jalkar.

7. It has been further pointed out that with respect to settlement of different portion of the same plot no. 5480 by the same Landlord made prior to 1.1.194