Judgment 1. This order disposes of the report of the Official Liquidator seeking direction to the Collector of Bhojpur, to pay compensation for the vesting of the proprietory interests of the company, Jagdishpur Zamindari Co. Ltd. (in Liquidation), under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. 2. Pursuant to order of this Court dated 10.1.97 in this regard the State of Bihar has filed counter affidavit disputing the claim of the company. According to the State, the Estate having been temporarily settled with the predecessors-in-interest of the company it is not entitled to any compensation. It is not even entitled to Malikana under section 24A of the Bihar Land Reforms Act as the same is payable only for unexpired portion of the period of settlement, and the period having expired in 1933, to be precise, on 31.10.33, Malikana also is not payable. According to the State further, since the company has not yet filed any return, no verification can be made or any compensation of assessment roll prepared or compensation paid. It is also said that the company claims to have acquired its rights in certain permanent Tauzis, namely, Tauzi nos. 1231, 3133, 3137, 3566, 4143, 4180, 1475, 5979, 8367 and 8710, on the basis of sale deeds dated 1.4.46. The sale deed being subsequent to the cut-off date, namely, 1.4.46 mentioned in section 4(h), the same is liable to be annulled under that provision, but as no return has been filed, no such action has been taken. 3. It may be stated here that the matter regarding payment of compensation has been hanging fire, so far as the present proceeding is concerned, since 1978 itself. Earlier, the Additional Collector of Bhojpur had determined the compensation at Rs. 3.48 lacs payable to the company. As, however, the amount was not paid as a result of which petition for final dissolution of the company could not be filed, a report was submitted by the official Liquidator seeking necessary direction of this Court. By order dated 27.10.78 this Court directed the Additional Collector, Arrah, to dispose of the matter without any further delay. More or less similar orders were passed on subsequent dates. By order dated 27.10.78 this Court directed the Additional Collector, Arrah, to dispose of the matter without any further delay. More or less similar orders were passed on subsequent dates. It may be mentioned here that from the materials on records it appears that although the Additional Collector had taken a favourable view of the matter, the Collector of the district referred the matter to the State Government. The State Government vide its letter no. 680 dated 31.3.80 rejected the claim of the company for payment or either compensation of Malikana. From the records it appears that vide order dated 2.1.81 the matter was referred to the Advocate General for his opinion. The Advocate General, in fact, sent his opinion to the Legal Remembrancer (See the order dated 18.2.83). Unfortunately, the said opinion has not been brought on record of this case. 4. The claim of the company which finds its origin in the confiscating of the Jagdishpur Estate belonging to the legendary Babu Kunwar Singh in 1857 and its subsequent lease/settlement, has a long history. Since the claim rests on documents which were not in possession of the Official Liquidator, various orders were passed at the instance of the Official Liquidator to make available certain documents, list of which was supplied, initially to the Advocate General and later to the Government Pleader Sri S.J. Rahman. Unfortunately, only few of them were made available. Since the matter was coming on for long time and the State virtually expressed its inability to furnish the remaining documents, with the consent of the parties the matter was taken up for hearing. 5. Sri Chittaranjan Sinha, appearing for the Official Liquidator, traced the history of the compensation of the Zamindari estate comprising of the Jungles lands as well as villages and its settlement with one Mr. Burrows. I do not propose to set out the details in this regard, for it is the admitted case of the parties that the Estate was settled with his interest successor-in-one Mr.E.Mylne for period of 20 years from 1.11.1913 to 31.10.1933. According to the State, the settlement was never renewed after expiry of the said period. According to the company, on the other hand, in view of the renewal clause contained in the deed, not only the period of settlement was renewed but the Government also recognised the proprietory rights of the settlee, namely, Mr. According to the State, the settlement was never renewed after expiry of the said period. According to the company, on the other hand, in view of the renewal clause contained in the deed, not only the period of settlement was renewed but the Government also recognised the proprietory rights of the settlee, namely, Mr. Mylne and his successors-in-interest. 6. It would not be out of place to mention here that it is the uncontroverted case of the company that the name of Mr.E.Mylne was recorded in the survey and settlement records which were completed in the then district of Shahabad sometimes in the year 1913, the Register D containing the particulars of the proprietory rights in Tauzis also mentioned his name as proprietor. Mr. Mylne sold away the Estate to M/s. Nirmal Kumar and Chakreshwar Kumar Jain sometimes in the year 1929. It is said that by virtue of the terms of the settlement Mr. Mylne was entitled to sell the estate. It is also said that the aforesaid purchasers exercising the rights as proprietor of the Tauzis transferred the estate to the company i.e. Jagdishpur Zamindari Co. Ltd. which they formed in 1937. They continued to exercise all rights as absolute owner and proprietor until the vesting of the estate under the Land Reforms Act in 1951. It is said that during this period they had also made several transactions with respect to the properties of the estate which were duly recognised by the State of Bihar. The names of all subsequent purchasers were duly mutated in Register D under orders of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Arrah. 7. Sri Chittaranjan Sinha submitted that vesting of the estate under notification of the State Government dated 3.11.51 under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act indicates that the Government had recognised the proprietory rights of the company. The said notification was never revoked by the Government. According to Sri Sinha once notification under section 3(1) of the Land Reforms Act is issued, there cannot be implied revocation, in this regard he placed reliance on State of Bihar V/s. Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narayan Singh (1961 BLJR 446). The said notification was never revoked by the Government. According to Sri Sinha once notification under section 3(1) of the Land Reforms Act is issued, there cannot be implied revocation, in this regard he placed reliance on State of Bihar V/s. Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narayan Singh (1961 BLJR 446). Sri Sinha also referred to the proceedings of the Bihar Assembly mentioning the decision of the State Government that neither the transfers from settlees had incurred any liability for cancellation of settlement nor the State Government proposed to return the Estate of Babu Kunwar Singh to his descendants as the same was in possession of others. Sri Sinha contended that being the specific stand of the State Government it is not open to it to now say that the settlement of the estate expired in 1933. Sri Sinha submitted that if it is a fact that the settlement expired in 1933 the State should have stated facts as to how the estate was managed after 1933. He also contended that the documents which are really the basis of the claim of the company having been withheld by the State, it is not open to the State to plead its case on hypotheses, rather adverse inference should be drawn from such non-supply of the documents. He contended that the stand of the State that the documents are not available cannot be believed as the State is the custodian of all revenue records. 8. The non-availability of the documents which are basis of the claim of the company indeed has created difficulty in deciding its claim. I, however, find enough substance in the contention that having failed to supply the documents despite several opportunities during the period of two years or so, the State cannot be permitted to take the stand that in the absence of the supporting documents the case of the company regarding extension of the settlement should not be believed. From the documents quoted verbatim in the memorial submitted by Sri Ajay Kumar Jain, a representative of the Official Liquidator (which are not factually controverted), it is clear that the settlement with Mr. Mylne contained a renewal clause and the only right available to the Government was to raise the amount of land revenue. Further, in view of the express term of the settlement Mr. Mylne contained a renewal clause and the only right available to the Government was to raise the amount of land revenue. Further, in view of the express term of the settlement Mr. Mylne sold away his proprietory interest to M/s Nirmal Kumar Chakreshwar Kumar Jain, who in course of time, formed the company in question and transferred the Estate to it. The fact that the names of the purchasers were recorded in Register D with respect to the Tauzis in question in Case No. 1054A under the orders of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, prima facie, indicates that the Government recognised them as proprietor. More importantly, the fact that the estate was included in the notification containing list of the estates which were to vest in the State of Bihar goes a long way to substantiate the companys claim. Section 3(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act refers to "the estates or tenures of a proprietor or tenure-holder" vesting in the State. The fact that the Additional Collector came to the conclusion that the company was entitled to compensation also cannot be ignored. In these premises, I am rather inclined to accept the claim of the company. 9. The contention that the rights of the company with respect to certain Tauzis (as mentioned hereinabove) cannot be recognised because the company acquired such rights after 1,1.46 and, therefore, liable to be annulled under section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, it may simply be stated that in the absence of any adjudication to the effect that the transfer was made with the object of defeating the provisions of the Act or causing loss to the State and obtaining higher compensation, the acquisition cannot be assumed to be unlawful. It is not clear from the records as to whether the amount of Rs. 3,48,000/- determined by the Additional Collector included the compensation payable with respect to which Tauzis, covered by the sale deed dated 1.4.46, as well. Since an adjudication regarding the claim of the company was already made by the Additional Collector, it would be reasonable to hold that the company is entitled to the said amount. 10. Although the jurisdiction of this court to decide the entitlement of the company to receive compensation has not been challenged on behalf of the State, I may mention that such an adjudication is implicit in Section 456(1) of the Companies Act. 10. Although the jurisdiction of this court to decide the entitlement of the company to receive compensation has not been challenged on behalf of the State, I may mention that such an adjudication is implicit in Section 456(1) of the Companies Act. The said section, which deals with the custody of the Companys properties provides that where a winding up order has been made or where a provisional liquidator has been appointed, he shall take into his custody or under his control all the property, effects and actionable claims to which the company is or appears to be entitled. The words "is or appears to be entitled" give sufficient indication of the fact that jurisdiction of the Company Judge is not limited to only such property, etc. regarding which there is no dispute as to whether it belongs to the company or not, but also such property etc. regarding which there may be dispute. Otherwise the words "or appears to be" could not have occurred. The words "is entitled" would have been sufficient. There cannot be dispute that claim relating to compensation under the Land Reforms Act is an actionable claim arising out of the vesting of the property of the company. 11. In the above premises, the report of the Official Liquidator is disposed of with a direction to the State of Bihar through the Collector of Bhojpur to pay compensation of Rs. 3,48,000/- to the company within a period of three months to facilitate the final dissolution of the company.