The court emphasized that the power under section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 cannot be exercised in a casual manner and that the State has the duty to do what is fair and just to the citizen, especially in land acquisition cases.

In the year 1999 substantial lands were sought to be acquired for establishment of an Ordinance Factory at Rajgir in the district of Nalanda. All the petitioners of these four writ petitions belong to one family with excerption of the last writ application where the petitioners are purchasers from the said family. Section 4 notification, dispensing with the objection under section 5-A in terms of section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued in the year 2000, initiating District Land Acquisition (DLA) Nalanda Case No. 07 of 2000. Nevertheless, the petitioners filed their objections. This was followed by notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 2000 itself. Possession was taken and the lands vested in the State and in due course were handed over to the Ordinance Factory, which is a Government of India Undertaking.

2. When it came to making of Award or for that matter paying 80% compensation as was required to be paid before possession was taken, an enquiry was ordered and initiated with regard to claim of the petitioners, in which a report (Annexure 7) was submitted. In the said enquiry report, the Additional Collector looked into all documents. He noticed that the petitioners were settlees from the ex-Zamindar and settlements were made and mentioned in the Return filed upon vesting of Jamindari. Pursuant to this document as far back as in the year 1956, the petitioners were duly recorded as tenants in Register-II by the State and Jamabandi was opened in their favour. Still, he doubted the correctness of the settlements. Accordingly, the Collector, Biharsharif recommended to the Government for necessary action.

3. Later on proceedings under section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’) was initiated in the year 2002 for cancellation of the said Jamabandi. In these proceedings again an enquiry was ordered. The enquiry report is Annexure 10. The enquiry report was submitted clearly stating all the facts, which were all matters of record including Government records, which were all over 50 years old. It was also admitted that the predecessors of these petitioners were continuously in possession since the very beginning of settlement. The 4(h) proceedings are still pending. The result is that even though petitioners and their predecessors were found in possession for over 50 years, Jamabandi having been created as far back as in 1956 pursuant to the Return filed by the Jamindar in the year 1952-53, which is Annexure 2, yet the proceedings for cancellation are kept pending. The effect is that though the petitioners have been the owners of the lands, they were summarily evicted for the factory aforesaid, and they have been deprived of compensation. State, which was not entitled to receive the compensation, received the compensation in the meantime and appropriated it.

4. It is submitted that the whole proceedings are not only without jurisdiction but mala fide as well. With reference to section 4(h) of the Act, it is submitted that there are only three contingencies, under which section 4(h) of the Act could have been invoked. One where soon after vesting it is found that any settlement had been made by the ex-land lord after first day of January, 1946, the genuineness of those settlements could be examined for the reason of avoidance of consequences of jamindari abolition. Second, where settlements were made to enhance the claim of compensation on jamindari abolition and third such settlements were made to cheat the Government. An enquiry could be initiated under section 4(h) of the Act and Jamabandi created could be cancelled. Section 4(h) of the Act permits no other contingencies.

5. As noted above, all the four cases arise out of the same proceedings and all the petitioners are relatives with exception as noted earlier. In the first case, a counter affidavit has been filed by the State, wherein it is stated that the lands were originally Gair mazarua malik lands and a