JUDGMENT Ravi Nandan Sahay, J. - Both the courts below have dismissed the suit filed by the appellant. The suit was filed for declaration of title and confirmation of possession or in the alternative recovery of possession over the suit land as mentioned in Schedule-I of the plaint. 2. The appellant's claim to the suit land was founded on settlement by the Ex-landlord. By order dated 3.4.1978 the State of Bihar cancelled his settlement illegally. The appellant's case is that Khesra No. 1891 having an area of 3 acres 16 decimals of Khata no. 287 of village Ghiwadhar stood recorded as Gairmajarua Malik in R.S. Khatian. Previously, Bettiah Raj was the owner of the land. Bettiah Raj settled some lands in favour of a few raiyats out of the said land under Khata no. 287 and after vesting the State of Bihar came in possession of the rest of the land of the said khata. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of 41 acres of land of plot no. 1891 since last 20 years. After vesting of Jamindari the appellant filed a petition before the Anchal Adhikari for settlement in his favour. The Anchal Adhikari recommended the case of the appellant to the LRDC. LRDC, Motihari settled the said land with the appellant on 22.7.1975 and sent papers to the S.D.O. Sadar Motihari for its approval. The aforesaid recommendation was duly approved and the plaintiff paid rent for 20 years at the rate of Rs. 37.40 paise on 28.11.1975. The plaintiff-appellant constructed certain structures over the disputed land. Subsequently a dispute under section 144 Cr. P.C. arose between Sri Shah and the appellant. The 144 Cr. P.C. proceeding was later converted into 145 Cr. P.C. proceeding. During the pendency of 145 Cr. P.C. proceeding the aforesaid Sri Shah filed an application before the Collector for cancellation of the said settlement in favour of the plaintiff. It appears that on the same day the Collector, East Champaran cancelled the settlement without serving any notice to the appellant. Thereafter follow up action was taken by the Anchal Adhikari. 3. The appellant's claim was opposed by the defendants on the plea that the settlement was not a valid settlement inasmuch as the appellant never came in possession of the suit land. The settlement order was obtained by fraud played by the appellant. Thereafter follow up action was taken by the Anchal Adhikari. 3. The appellant's claim was opposed by the defendants on the plea that the settlement was not a valid settlement inasmuch as the appellant never came in possession of the suit land. The settlement order was obtained by fraud played by the appellant. According to the defendants, close south of the suit land there was Brahmsthan and towards west is M.E. School and on the north there is Idgah and the suit land was not fit to be settled with any body. The appellant is not a landless person and as such according to the Government Policy and circular the land could not be settled with the plaintiff. It was alleged that in the night of 25/26th March, 1978 during the Holi festival the appellant all of a sudden put an old hut on the suit land which hurt the feelings of two communities and so there was serious apprehension of breach of peace. A magistrate was deputed to maintain peace. Later on illegal encroachment over the suit land was removed in pursuance of the order passed by the Collector cancelling the settlement. 4. The findings of the courts below are that the land settled with the appellant has already been settled with some other persons. The courts below further held that even if by the order of the Collector cancelling the settlement the appellant was aggrieved, he ought to have moved before the Commissioner by way of appeal under section 35 of the Land Reforms Act. The courts below held that the suit was barred under section 35 of the Act. The appellate court found that the appellant has obtained the settlement fraudulently. 5. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the finding of the courts below on the following grounds : (a) The courts below under misconception recorded that the suit is barred under section 16 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act which has no bearing at all on the question raised by the plaintiff. None of the Courts below touched the question whether the cancellation of the settlement is without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff which is said to be illegal. (b) the settlement made under the provisions of the Act can only be annulled by invoking section 4(h) or the Act. None of the Courts below touched the question whether the cancellation of the settlement is without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff which is said to be illegal. (b) the settlement made under the provisions of the Act can only be annulled by invoking section 4(h) or the Act. The Collector without invoking section 4(h) annulled the settlement arbitrarily without any valid reason. 6. The contentions of the leaned counsel appears to be well founded. The courts below failed to decide the crucial question regarding cancellation of settlement. There is no doubt that the settlement was made by the State authorities after going through the due formalities. Once the settlement is validly made, it cannot be cancelled without following the procedure prescribed under the Act. In the present case not only the procedure was not followed but it was cancelled arbitrarily without notice to the settlee. I am constrained to hold that the courts below missed the legal position in non-suiting the appellant. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the suit is decreed in terms of the relief claimed in the plaint. However, it will be open to the Collector to cancel the settlement in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.