Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, J.C. to S.C. (L&C) for the respondents.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner has been filed challenging the order dated 04.09.2001 passed by the respondent no. 3 in case No. 1/97, T.R. No. 79 R 15/2000-01 as contained in Annexure-15 to the writ petition alleging that the respondent no. 3 erroneously and arbitrarily cancelled the transfer made by Deed dated 16.04.1948 (Annexure-1) and all subsequent demands opened in respect of the land in question in the purported proceeding under section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The petitioner has also challenged the appellate order dated 20.08.2002 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Ranchi Misc. Appeal No. 067/2002 as contained in "Annexure-16" to the writ petition whereby the order passed by the respondent no. 3 has been confirmed.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners by referring the impugned order as contained at Annexure-15 to the writ petition has submitted as follows: a) The property in question is situated in Kamre Mauza being portion of R.S. Plot No. 1051 appertaining to Khata No. 60 , Plot No. 549, Area 1.25 acre and Plot 1051, Area 10.80 acre and total area 12.05 acre is recorded as gairmazarua khas parti pathaar in the revisional survey khatiyan. b) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is an order of passed under section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and he points out that the reason for passing the impugned order is that the land lord were not competent to do settlement after 01.01.1946. He submits that the order dated 04.09.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner is apparently illegal. It has also been illegally and arbitrarily recorded that the Sri K.B. N. Singh, in whose favour settlement was made, never came in possession of the property. c) Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the appellate court in its order dated 20.08.2002 which is contained in Annexure-16 to the writ petition has held that there is no evidence to show that Krishna Ballabh Narayan Singh actually came in the possession of the property and submits that the impugned order is perverse as there was enough material to show that Sri K.B. N. Singh came in possession of the property. d) Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the 1987 BLT (Rep.) 217 and 1990 PLJR 165 and submits that these judgments goes to show that even if the settlement is made even after 01.01.1946 the settlement cannot be annulled under certain circumstances .He further submits that the said judgments are fully applicable in favour of the petitioners of this case in the facts and circumstances of this case.;