S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by Jagdish Sao and Rameshwar Ram against notice, dated 5th December, 1992, as also the order, dated 7th August, 1980 passed by the respondont. Land Reforms Deputy Collector (LRDC) in Hazaribagh Case Nos. 1/75 -76; 2/78 -79; 1/76 -77 and 1/79 -80 under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (BLR Act).
(2.) BY original order, dated 7th August, 1980, the respondent -LRDC held that the lands in question were settled by ex -landlord after the date of vesting, also observed that the settlement was made with a view to obtaining higher compen -sation for defeating the provisions of the BLR Act. The petitioners having intimated of the decision, vide impugned notice, dated 5th December, 1992 (An -nexures 6 and 6/a), challenged both the notices and the common order, dated 7th August, 1980. As the case can be disposed of on short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, their respective lands were settled in favour of their ancestors by the ex -landlord by hukumnama issued in the years 1928 and 1929. The first petitioner, Jagdish Sao, son of late Laxman Sao while referred the land measuring 5.02 acres of Khata No. 542 situated in village Khapariawan on the basis hukumnama, dated 8.11.1928, the other petitioner Rameshwar Ram, son of late Sohan Ram claims right over land measuring 5.7 acres of Plot No. 542 of village -Khapariawan on the basis of hukumnama of the year 1929. According to them, some complaint was filed by one Sohar Sao and others, on which a proceeding under Section 4(h) of BLR Act was initiated against a number of persons, including the fathers of petitioners (late Laxman Sao and late Sohan Ram). It was registered as Hazaribagh Case Nos. 1/75 -76; 2/78 -79; and '1/79 -80, but the petitioners being minor had no knowledge of the same. Suddenly, when they received notices issued on 4th/5th December, 1992 and informed that their right and title over the lands in question, have been taken away by virtue of the impugned order passed under Section 4(h). After obtaining the certified copy, they could come to know that in the said proceeding, no reasonable opportunity was given to their fathers and by cryptic order, the setthements were annulled. ;