Tapen Sen, J.

1. Heard Mr. Debi Prasad, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Lalit Kr. Lal and Mr. R.S. Mazumdar learned Government Advocate, assisted by Shri A. Banerjee and Shri P.N, Mishra, Advocates.

2. The writ petitioners pray for quashing of the entire proceedings in case No. 18 of 1986-87 under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the proceedings whereof are contained at Annexure 30. By reason of the aforementioned proceedings, the respondents passed an order for annulment of settlement in respect of 33.00 acres of land out of Revisional Survey Plot No. 758 appertaining to Khata No. 189 and situated at Village - Soparan, P.S. Ratu, District - Ranchi. By reason of the same order the Jamabandi which was opened in the name of Petitioner No. 1 (Society) was also ordered to be cancelled and direction was made for taking possession of the lands in question.

3. Mr. Debi Prasad, learned Sr. Advocate has made a very short argument and he has submitted that proceedings under Section 4(h) had already been dropped earlier by the competent authority (Land Reforms Deputy Collector) on 22.6.1989 (vide Annexure 27) and the State did not prefer any appeal against the said order. Consequently the order dropping the proceedings on 22.6.1989 attained finality where after the State Respondents had absolutely no authority or jurisdiction to proceed with the matter.

4. According to him, in view of the proceedings having attained finality, the same could not have been re-opened.

5. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned G.A. has submitted that there was no illegality in passing the impugned order inasmuch as the L.R.D.C. had firstly made a report on 24.1.1988 (Annexure-D to the Counter Affidavit) by which he recommended that Jamabandi should be cancelled under the provisions of Section 4(h). Subsequently he again passed an order dropping the proceedings and therefore, being placed with two different contradictory reports, the Additional Collector had no option but to make an independent inquiry. Having so conducted an independent inquiry, the authorities came to a conclusion that there were violation in the matter relating to settlement of the lands and therefore the impugned order was correctly passed. He therefore submits that the order dropping the proceedings by the L.R.D.C. did not end the matter as it was merely interlocutory in nature which required further processing and therefore whatever was done at the level of the Additional Collector was proper and justified.

6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid submissions, this Court looked into various documents cited and referred to by the parties. Annexure-D is the order dated 24.1.1988 and it is an order by which the Land Reforms Deputy Collector recommends proceedings under Section 4(h) for purposes of cancellation of settlement. From a perusal of the said recommendation, it appears that on the same day he directed that the matter be placed before the Additional Collector for necessary action. The relevant portion of the order is quoted below :--

vr% mDr rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa ,sls ekeyksa esa Hkwfe lq/kkj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4@,p@dh dkjZokbZ dj cUnkscLrh jn~n dh tk ldrh gS A ekStk lksikje dk iqjkuk iath] [kfr;ku ,oa yxkrkj [kfr;ku esjs ikl lqjf{kr gS] ftls ekaxus ij Hkstk tk;sxk A izfrosnu vij lekgrkZ] jkWph dks vko;d dkjZokbZ gsrq Hksth tk; A**

7. It appears that after the matter was placed before the Additional Collector on 2.6.1988, the said Officer directed the Halka Karmchari to look into the same and make necessary report. That order is contained on the reverse of running page 221 of the writ application (page 54 of the Counter Affidavit) and which is dated 2.6.1988 which reads as follows :--

vfHkys[k mi lekgrkZ Hkwfe lq/kkj lnj jkaph ls 989 fnukad 28-5-1988 ds lkFk izkIr gqvk A vfHkys[k esa vkfnkkuqlkj fcgkj Hkwfe lq/kkj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4@,p@ds vUrxZr cUnkscLrh jn~n gsrq funsZk fn;k x;k gS A

gYdk deZpkjh ls mDr lEcU/k esa izLrko dk ekax gsrq dgk tk; A**

8. After the aforemention