The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of the power under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, and the requirement for objective material for the satisfaction of the Collector, as well as the onus of proof on the State to challenge settlements.

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, J.

1. Heard counsel for the State, counsel for the private respondents as well as for the Union of India.

2. All these appeals arise out of a common order dated 31.03.2014 passed by the learned single Judge who clubbed four writ applications together because the issue related to non-payment of compensation for acquisition of their land under emergency provisions for setting up of an Ordinance Factory at Rajgir in the district of Nalanda.

3. The learned single Judge took note of the fact that only on the basis of a suspected creation of Jamabandi, a 4(h) proceeding under Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, was initiated and that proceeding remained pending for more than 12 years without reaching any conclusion. The learned single Judge also took note of the fact that the report submitted in the 4(h) proceeding was in favour of the private respondents. Not only this the learned single Judge took note of the provisions of Section 4(h) and how and under what circumstances such power could be exercised keeping in mind a large number of decisions on such subject. This Court is tempted to quote the words used by the learned single Judge on this issue, which is reflected in paragraph 4 till paragraph 10, which reads as under:

“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 as such a doubt had now, after 50 years, arisen about settlements. I am afraid, that cannot be a ground because it is now well-settled by series of judgments of this Court that if it is Gair mazarua malik land, the Zamindar had full authority to make settlement thereof. There appears to be some misconception with the authorities that Gair mazarua malik land cold not be settled. Apart from attempting to create a vague doubt, there is no substance in the counter affidavit.

6. It is equally well-settled by several decisions of this Court firstly that power under section 4(h) of the Act cannot be exercised in a casual manner. Secondly, if the State challenges the correctness of the settlements and the entries in relation thereto, onus is entirely upon the State to prove that they are wrong. The onus cannot be fastened on the person, who has been in possession and that too since long.

7. Then it is submitted that even the satisfaction of the Collector has to be based on some objective material and not on his subjective satisfaction. Then it is submitted that if settlements had been validly made by exintermediary then the Collector had no jurisdiction to cancel the same except under the contingencies as mentioned in section 4(h) of the Act. Thus, the very initiation of these proceedings and on that ground to deny the right of the petitioners to receive compensation was mala-fide and without jurisdiction. Reference was made to Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Chandreshwari Prasad Narain Deo and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another, AIR 1956 Patna 104, another Division Bench jud