JUDGMENT Satya Brata Sanyal, J. 1. This is an application for quashing Annexures 8, 9, 10, the orders passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner in a proceeding under Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act cancelling a registered settlement made on 24.1.1955. 2. The short facts relevant for the purpose of this writ petition are that the ex-landlords reclaimed the lands in question by obtaining loans in L. I. Case No. 101 of 1953-54. L.I. Case No. 102 of 1953-54 and W.L.R. Case No.3 of 1954-55. After having reclaimed, the lands with the assistance of the loan provided by the State Government they came in Khas possession of the lands by cultivating the same. It was abad malik and paddy growing. Before the vesting of the estate in the State, which fact took place in September, 1955 and May, 1956, the petitioner, which is a farm engaged in agricultural developments, took settlement by a registered deed from the ex-landlord on 24.1.1955. After having taken settlement of the land it remained in Khas possession of the same. Its possession was so recorded by the State by grant of rent receipts. The fact of settlement and possession was accepted and ratified when the State acquired a part of the farm in Land Acquisition Case No.3 of 1956-57 and compensation was awarded to the petitioner in the said land acquisition case. It is said that this was not the end. On 28th February, 1960, the State for rehabilitating Kharias in the land in dispute sought to purchase a part of the property pursuant to the said agreement for a sum of Rs. 81,322.68. Pursuant to the said agreement of sale, possession was also taken by the State on 31.3.1960. It appears that some time in September, 1962 the State issued a notice that since the settlement was made after 1946, why the same should not be cancelled in a proceeding under Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The case of the State is that even though the land was "205 acres, it was so settled for a sum of Rs. 226 in order to cause loss to the Government and, therefore, it was to defeat the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The case of the State is that even though the land was "205 acres, it was so settled for a sum of Rs. 226 in order to cause loss to the Government and, therefore, it was to defeat the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. It was further stated that the grant of rent receipts is without prejudice and, therefore, it confers no right on the petitioner. As to reclamation the case of the State is that the rent of Rs.10/- was a meagre amount for the said purpose and, therefore, it was an ey-wash. The acquisition of a part of the land through land acquisition proceedings as well as the agreement to purchase a part of the land can confer no right upon the petitioner as in fact the entire purpose of the settlement was to defeat the provisions of the Bihar land Reforms Act. It is said that the land was never in Khas possession of the ex-landlords and, therefore, there could be no question of availability of Section 6 (1) (c) of the Act. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the land was in Khas possession of the petitioner because the petitioner has shown by production of cogent documentary evidence that the ex-landlords reclaimed the land for the purpose of cultivation on obtaining loan from the Government. The land was further recorded as abad malik and paddy growing. It will be too late in the day now to contend that the ex-landlords were not in Khas cultivating possession of the land and they are not entitled to the protection of Section 6 (1) of the Act. Further, the settlement of 24.1.55 prior to the vesting was acted upon by accepting the petitioner as a raiyat of the said land by grant of rent receipts and was confirmed and ratified by initiating land acquisition proceedings by the State itself against the settlee and paying compensation therefor. Not only that, in February, 1960 the State decided to purchase the land from the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 81,322/- and took possession of a part of the land. Not only that, in February, 1960 the State decided to purchase the land from the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 81,322/- and took possession of a part of the land. In my opinion, these course of action estop the State to turn round at a belated stage to contend that the ex-landlords were never in Khas possession of the, land nor they had cultivated the land and the settlement were to defeat the provisions of law. On the contrary, I am of the view that in spite of the solemn agreement the State does not intend to pay the price of the land agreed upon by resorting to this proceeding, which, in my opinion, is wholly impermissive. In this background I cannot reject the rent receipts granted by the State merely because they are without prejudice. The course of action taken by the State in acknowledging the petitioner as the owner of the land and the entry of without prejudice bear no significance. 4. The other contention of the State that some of the members of the Company are close to the ex-landlord does not in my mind at all change the position. It is possible that the ex-landlord has settled the land to such persons who are capable to pull finance, energy and required dynamicism to run a farm of waste land which was reclaimed by the ex-landlord. The ground that for an area of 205 acres the annual rent fixed was Rs.226/. and, therefore, it was to defeat the provisions of the Act, causing loss to the State is equally unsubstantive. It has been claimed by the petitioner that, that was the prevailing rate in those areas which are hilly tracks and waste lands. Further, nothing prevented the State from refusing to accept the rent if it was of the opinion that the rent fixed was too low. No proceeding was taken by the State for the revision of rent. I am of the opinion that the State is now estopped by its own action to question the legality of settlement of the year 1955. It is not that all settlements made after 1946 must be cancelled. No proceeding was taken by the State for the revision of rent. I am of the opinion that the State is now estopped by its own action to question the legality of settlement of the year 1955. It is not that all settlements made after 1946 must be cancelled. It is only such settlements which were to defeat the provisions of law that call for cancellation in my opinion in the instant case the State Government took the action in order to wriggle out of the agreement to purchase the property for a sum of Rs. 81,322.68. It is further bound by the decision in the land acquisition proceeding which was inter se and wherein it accepted that the petitioner' is the proprietor of the land. 5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the orders contained in Annexures 8, 9, and 10 are quashed, the proceeding under Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act being wholly misconceived. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner are directed to refrain from giving effect to the orders contained in Annexures 8, 9, and 10. There will be no order as to costs.