Ashutosh Kumar, J. – We have heard Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh for the petitioner and Ms. Nutan Sahay for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 25.01.2018 passed in LPA No. 150 of 2014 arising out of CWJC No. 2406 of 2003 to the extent that it be clarified that no order has been passed under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 till date regarding cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner.

3. Before addressing us on merits, Mr. Singh has pressed I.A. No. 1 of 2022, seeking condonation of delay of one year and twenty days in preferring this review petition.

4. The reason ascribed in the application seeking condonation of delay is the time having lost in going before the Supreme Court against the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court which is now sought to reviewed in the present application and the liberty having been granted by the Supreme Court to prefer a review petition.

5. For the reasons stated in the application, we allow the prayer and condone the delay.

6. The I.A. No. 1 of 2022 is disposed of accordingly.

7. Coming to the main issue, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that he had approached the revenue authority namely Sub-Divisional Officer, Supaul for fixation of rent against a land which was acquired by him under a valid sale deed executed by the Ex- Zamindar. The same was allowed but the State took the matter in appeal before the Additional Collector, Supaul wherein the matter was remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Supaul for a reconsideration.

8. At this stage i.e. after remand, the S.D.O., Supaul came to the finding that the land in question was acquired by the petitioner after 1st of January, 1946, by which time the land which was being used as a Kutchery by the Ex-Zamindar had vested in the State Government by virtue of Section 4 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The S.D.O, Supaul thereafter recommended for initiation of a proceeding for removal of encroachment from the said land.

9. Though the claim of the petitioner was rejected by all the revenue authorities including Commissioner, Kosi Sub-Division, Saharsa as also the learned Single Judge hearing the matter but, at all these levels, there was no consideration of the fact that the proceeding for removal of encroachment under the 4(h) had never been initiated, which gave the petitioner a right to be heard before the sale deed could have been annulled.

10. All the authorities, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner, limited their focus to the issue whether the land in question could have been alienated by way of sale deed in favour of anybody after 1st of January, 1946.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that all these decisions of the revenue authorities and of the learned Single Judge, referred above, were affirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 150 of 2014 which put its imprimatur on the proposition that in no case can the provision of Section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 could have been defeated by resorting to alienating the land by a sale deed after the cut-off date, when it was found for certainty that the land in question was being used as a Kutchery by the Ex-Zamindar.

12. The argument advanced by the petitioner before the Division Bench that any statutory authority is under an obligation to exercise its power within a reasonable time frame, did not find favour with the appellate court as such powers could have been exercised only on discovery of the fact that an attempt was being made to defeat the provisions of Section 4 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and, therefore, such statutory decisions could not have been restricted within any calendar.

13. The argument of the petitioner that none of the orders which had been affirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 150 of 2014 recorded any subjective satisfaction on the basis of objective facts, was also not accepted as in the assessment of the Division Bench, the satisfaction was comple