Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. As both these writ applications involve common question of law and facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. By these writ applications, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 4-3-1980 passed by the Additional Collector in Appeal No. 16 of 1974 as contained in Annexure-4 to this writ application, and also for quashing the orders dated 19-8-80 and 23-3-82 passed by the learned Commissioner, Bhagalpur in Munger revision No. 35 of 1980-81 as contained in Annexure 5 and 7 to this writ application. 3. The aforesaid respondents passed the aforesaid orders in purported exercise of their power under Sec. 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. For the purpose of disposal of these writ applications, the facts as narrated in C, W. J. C. 2138/82 are being considered. The petitioner allegedly took settlement of 11 dhurs of land in plot No. 396 khata No. 96 situate in village Rangaon Kaprichak, P. S., Tarapur, District Munger. The aforesaid settlement was made by the ex-landlord of the Putne Estate. Pursuant to the said settlement a rent receipt was issued in favour of petitioner on 20-9-1945. According to the petitioner after taking settlement of the land, he constructed Pucca house and has been carrying on business in a portion thereof and was using the rest for the residential purpose on 11-12-70, D. C. L. R., Munger, (respondent No. 3) issued a notice to show cause upon the petitioner directing him to show cause as to why a proceeding under Sec. 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act shall not be initiated against him. Pursuant to the aforementioned show cause notice the petitioner appeared for his show cause and filed documents in support of his case. The petitioner has asserted that after vesting of the zamindaris in the State of Bihar, a return was filed by the ex-landlord and the factum of the settlement made in favour of the petitioner has been mentioned therein and pursuant thereto the petitioners name was entered into the Register-II maintained by the State of Bihar and since then it had been accepting rent from the petitioner. By an order dated 29-3-74 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application on the respondent No. 3 in the said proceedings allegedly held that as the land was settled after 1-1-1946 and, therefore, he has jurisdiction to initiate proceeding under Sec. 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. 4. The petitioner against the aforementioned order preferred appeal and on 8-3-1980 although record was not received from the court of D.C.L.R., Munger (Respondent No. 3), the respondent No. 2 dismissed the said appeal by saying that he bad perused the lower court records and come to the conclusion that the land belonged to the Government. A copy of this order is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application. The petitioner further filed, another application and by order dated 19-8-80, respondent No. 2 dismissed this appeal by saying that the land is connected with Kamaria Dharmshala and, therefore, the same is Government land, this order is contained in Annexure-5 to this writ application. The petitioner has annexed the entire copy of the order for the purpose of showing that the records were not received from the D. C. L. R. and as such the finding of the Additional Collector in the aforementioned order contained an error of record. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred a revision application before the Commissioner, Bhagalpur against the aforesaid orders dated 4-3-80 and 19-8-80 which are contained in Annexure 4 and 5 to this writ application. The respondent No. 1 by an order dated 22-3-82 although held that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to say that he had perused the lower court records as the some were not available but still be dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the aforementioned impugned orders are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch there was absolutely no material on the basis whereof the concerned respondents could hold that the proceeding under Sec. 4 (b) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act was maintainable. 5. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed by the State of Bihar. In the said counter affidavit a peculiar stand has been taken on behalf of the respondents. 5. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed by the State of Bihar. In the said counter affidavit a peculiar stand has been taken on behalf of the respondents. In the said counter affidavit, it has been denied that the petitioner has taken any settlement of the land in question before l-1-1946 in paragraph-2 of the said counter affidavit but cunningly enough in paragraph-6 of the said counter affidavit, it has been mentioned that the petitioner has not been able to substantiate his claim that the land has settled with the petitioner by the ex-landlord Similarly, in para-7 of the said counter affidavit, it has been averred that there was no valid settlement in the eye of law for the simple reason that the so called settlement is not supported by any document such as Kubuliyat, Parcha, Hukumnama, Pattah or Parvana. In para-9 of the counter affidavit, it has been mentioned that the rent receipt granted in favour of the petitioner cannot be relied upon. 6. From the stand taken by the aforementioned respondents it would be evident that they have been taking contradictory and inconsistent stand. In para-9 of the counter affidavit, it has been mentioned that the rent receipt granted in favour of the petitioner cannot be relied upon. 6. From the stand taken by the aforementioned respondents it would be evident that they have been taking contradictory and inconsistent stand. The very fact that in terms of Sec. 4 (b) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act; an enquiry was required to be made, in respect of a transfer/settlement in causing with a view to find out as to whether such settlement having been made at any time after 1-1-1946 and it was made with an object to defeat the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act or for the purpose of quashing loss to the State of Bihar or obtaining higher compensation therein ; goes to show that the factum of the settlement cannot be disputed in a proceeding under Sec. 4 (h) of the said Act.Section 4 (b) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act reads as follows : The Collector shall have power to make inquiries in respect of any transfer including the settlement or lease of any land comprised in such estate or tenure or the transfer of any kind of interest in any building used primarily as office or cutchery for the collection of rent of such estate or tenure or part thereof, and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made at any time after the first day of January, 1946, with the object of defeating any provisions of this Act or causing loss to the State or obtaining higher compensation thereunder, the Collector may, after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard annul such transfer, dispossess the person claiming it and take possession of such property on such terms as may appear to the Collector to be fair and equitable : Provided that an appeal against an order of the Collector under this clause if preferred within sixty days of such order, shall lie to the prescribed authority not below the rank of the Collector of a district who shall dispose of the same according to the prescribed procedure : Provided further that no order annulling a transfer shall take effect nor shall possession be taken in pursuance of it unless such an order has been confirmed by the State Government. 7. 7. From the order as contained in Annexures 3 and 7 of the writ application, it does not appear, as to which settlement was sought to be annulled. The respondents in the counter affidavit as also in the impugned order purported to hold that the settlement made in favour of the petitioner did not exist and there was no valid document to show that the land is his. As it would appear from a plain reading of the said provision that it has to be assumed for maintaining a proceeding under Sec. 4 (h) of the Act that a transfer was made by ex-landlord if on fact there was no transfer made by the ex-landlord in favour of any person, the question of initiation of any proceeding under Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act does not and cannot arise. 8. From a bare perusal of the order dated 29-3-74 as contained in Annexure-3 to this writ application, it appears that the respondent No. 3 in his aforementioned order relied solely upon the purported enquiry made by the Anchal Adhikari. It will not be out of place to mention that the proceeding itself was initiated on the basis of report made by Anchal Adhikari himself. There was nothing on the record to show as to how said report was admitted in evidence, inasmuch the Anchal Adhikari had not been| examined as a witness in the aforementioned case. The respondent No. 3 solely relied on the said report and took into consideration the contents thereof to the effect that the settlement of land made by Raj Banaili in favour of some persons after the year 1946 and the name of 19 such persons were mentioned therein. From a perusal of said order, it further transpires that the various rent receipts granted by the ex-landlord as also State Government were filed before him but he did not consider the said documents only on the ground that the petitioner had not filed any document of actual settlement. He further purported to hold that the rent receipts granted with the seal "without prejudice" cannot be a ground for accepting that the settlement made by Raj Banali before the year 1946 or the same had not been done with mala fide intention and, therefore the same are fit to be annulled. 9. He further purported to hold that the rent receipts granted with the seal "without prejudice" cannot be a ground for accepting that the settlement made by Raj Banali before the year 1946 or the same had not been done with mala fide intention and, therefore the same are fit to be annulled. 9. In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Commissioner in his order dated 22-3-82 as contained in Annexure-7 to his writ application with regard to the Additional Collectors order as contained in Annexures-4 and 5 and has referred, it is not necessary to deal with the said order as the learned Commissioner purported to have held that although settlement is possible to be made by grant of rent receipt but according to him such rent receipts can be back-dated and thus there were doubts regarding the settlement. He without referring to any particular receipt came to the conclusion that the earliest receipt seems to be of November, 1946. However, the assertion of the petitioners in the petition that the settlements were made in the year 1944-45 and the earliest rent receipt was dated 3-9-1945 as contained in Annexure-1 to this writ application, has not been denied in the counter affidavit. 10. From a perusal of Annexure-1 of C.W.J.C. No. 2139/82, it appears that a rent receipt dated 21-32-1944 was granted in favour of the petitioners. The respondent No. ! therefore, committed an error of record in holding that the earliest rent receipts was of November, 1946. The respondent No. 1 also relied upon the aforesaid report of C. O. and came to the conclusion that the land in question was kept for the purpose of religious and public institutions and the settlement must have made by the landlord for the purpose of obtaining higher compensation or for causing loss to the State. 11. From a perusal of the provision of Sec. 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, it would be evident that the Collector while exercising his power to make an enquiry in respect of annulment of transfer, must be satisfied about the following : (a) Such transfer was made at any time after 1-1-1946. (b) Such transfer was made with the object to defeat any provision of the Act or with a view to cause loss to the State or obtaining higher compensation therein, 12. (b) Such transfer was made with the object to defeat any provision of the Act or with a view to cause loss to the State or obtaining higher compensation therein, 12. The impugned orders to say the least are most unsatisfactory. There is no positive finding of the Respondent No. 1 or the Collector as to on which date the transfers were made which are sought to be annulled by the impugned orders. It is true that in a given case, it is open to the authority to say that the apparent state of affairs is not the real state of affairs and in such a case, it would be open to the State of Bihar to adduce evidence in order to enable the authority to come to a finding that the date mentioned in the rent receipt is not the actual date so as to show the transfer was although purported to have been made before 1-1-1946 but in reality, such settlement was made after 1-1-1946. Such is not the position in this case. There is no evidence worth the name except ipse-dexit of the respondents No. 1 to 3 that the settlements were made after 1-1-1946. The respondents No. 1 and 3 further wrongly relied upon the report made by the Anchal Adhikari and the Circle Inspector although the same were not proved in accordance with law, nor were the makers of the said reports were examined. There was no basis for the respondent No. 3 in coming to the finding that the settlement made by the ex-landlord in favour of the petitioner was mala fide in fact. Further the respondent No. 1s finding that the said settlements were made in order to obtain higher compensation, is based on no evidence whatsoever and as such must be held to be wholly perverse. Further the respondent No. 1 has not taken into consideration the relevant facts for the purpose of passing the impugned order. In terms of Sec. 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act even assuming that there are certain public institutions situate on a portion of the said land the settlement thereof which is sought to be annulled being a vast area the land in question having not been described with reference to the boundaries, the subject matter of the dispute ought to have been definite and not vague. In each of these cases the petitioners have come out with the story that the settlement made in their favour of ex-landlord were only 11 dhurs or 3-1/2 decimal of land whereas the area of the land in question is 2 acres 43 decimal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the area of the land in question and the area for which settlements were made nor also relevant consideration which have not been taken note of either by the respondent No. 1 or by the respondent No. 3 in their impugned orders. Further as seen before the respondents not even denied that they have constructed Pucca houses which they have been using for holding shops or using the same residential purpose. 13. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am constrained to hold that the impugned orders are wholly illegal and thus cannot be sustained. 14. In the result, the applications are allowed and the Annexures 3, 4, 5 and 7 are quashed but there will be no order as to costs.