JUDGEMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the Arrah-Sasaram Light Railway Company (hereinafter referred to as the Company for the sake of brevity) through its authorized representative for restraining the Superintendent of Survey and Settlement, Bhojpur (Respondent No. 4) from acting as appellate authority in Appeal Case No. 1 of 2009 although the matter had already been finally concluded vide order dated 2.2.2000 (Annexure-3) passed in Survey Appeal No. 24 of 1990 and also for quashing the entire proceeding of Appeal Case No. 1 of 2009 including order dated 19.2.2009 (Annexure-4) passed therein by the said authority holding that a spot verification for correction of record of right was essential and hence, the application of the applicant namely the State of Bihar dated 25.9.2008 was allowed under Rule 467 of the Bihar Survey & Settlement Manual, 1959 and the parties to the said appeal including the Company (petitioner) were directed to submit their pleadings and evidence for decision, under Chapter XXVIII of the said Manual, provided for Appeal, Revision & Correction of Mistakes in the Published Record and Map. 2. It is stated that in the early 20th Century the Company was formed for connecting Arrah and Sasaram by rail route and for that purpose several lands were acquired including the lands in question of Villages-Salempur, Kuraich, Sharifabad, Rasulpur and Mahadiganj vide Land Acquisition Case No. 24 of 1910-11 and daclaration for acquisition was made vide Declaration No. 2581 L.A. dated 15.9.1910 whereafter scheme of acquisition was published in the Gazette dated 28.9.1910 with respect to the aforesaid lands spread in several Tauzis and accordingly in the same year, the Company came in exclusive possession of the lands in question and started its operation for the purpose it was formed and as such was duly recorded with respect to the land in question in the Municipal Survey Records on 1931. 3. It is further stated that in the year 1977 Company Petition No. 623 of 1977 was filed before the High Court of Calcutta as the Company had closed its operation and thereafter it went into winding up/liquidation. In the year 1982 the Company applied for grant of permission to sell the said acquired lands, but when the State of Bihar did not respond the Company moved Calcutta High Court which directed the State of Bihar to consider the matter for grant of permission. In the year 1982 the Company applied for grant of permission to sell the said acquired lands, but when the State of Bihar did not respond the Company moved Calcutta High Court which directed the State of Bihar to consider the matter for grant of permission. In spite of the said order no step was taken by the State of Bihar and the Company had to file Company Application No. 267 of 1990 before Calcutta High Court for a direction to the State of Bihar either to acquire the land of the Company or to grant it permission to sell the lands. After hearing the parties, the Calcutta High Court rejected the plea of the State of Bihar vide order dated 7.2.1992 and granted permission to the liquidator of the Company to sell the land at highest price giving the State of Bihar a preferential right to purchase on the highest price offered. Against the said order the State of Bihar filed Appeal No. 415 of 1992 but the same was dismissed on 7.12.1992 by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, whereafter the State of Bihar preferred S.L.P. No. 22256 of 1997 before the Supreme Court but the said case was also dismissed on 15.12.1997. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts, the State of Bihar through its Secretary informed the Advocate of the Company vide Official Letter dated 15.11.2002 alongwith a copy of the legal opinion of the Advocate General of Bihar that the State of Bihar was not willing to take over the lands. In the meantime District Board of Rohtas filed Extraordinary Suit No. 8 of 1995 against the Company in which the relief was limited to money claim only and the said Extraordinary Suit was disposed of in terms of compromise on 6.1.2006 and a compromise decree was prepared which was upheld up till the Supreme Court. 5. However, the Union of India had also filed Survey Appeal No. 24 of 1990 challenging the Municipal Survey Khatiyan, which was in favour of the Company. In the said appeal all the parties were heard in detail and by a well considered order dated 2.2.2000(Annexure-3) the Superintendent of Survey and Settlement dismissed the said appeal holding that the lands in question belonged to the Company and was rightly recorded in its name. In the said appeal all the parties were heard in detail and by a well considered order dated 2.2.2000(Annexure-3) the Superintendent of Survey and Settlement dismissed the said appeal holding that the lands in question belonged to the Company and was rightly recorded in its name. Subsequently, in the year 2003-04 Revisional Municipal Survey Khatiyan was also prepared with respect to the lands in question in the name of the company. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that in the aforesaid decree dated 6.1.2006 the authorities were directed to rectify the errors in the record of rights with respect to the lands of the Company and to prepare the records in its name, but the authorities of the State of Bihar instead complying the said order started willfully defying the said order and creating obstructions in the works of the Company merely because their illegal demands were not fulfilled and hence, the petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 98 of 2006 against the said authorities namely Deputy Development Commissioner, Rohtas; District Magistrate, Rohtas, District Sub-Registrar, Sasaram; Incharge District Sub-Registrar, Bikramganj. In the said case show cause notices were issued to the said contemnors and they were punished by keeping them physically present in court for full day vide order passed by the Calcutta High Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that being annoyed with the said contempt proceeding, the authorities of the State of Bihar started creating hindrances in the execution of the orders of the Calcutta High Court which were upheld up to the Supreme Court and filed an encroachment proceeding against the Company with respect to the land in question, but feeling the obvious difficulty they withdrew the same. It is also stated that the authorities again got a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. initiated on 20.11.2008 with respect to the land in question on the basis of an illegal direction of the District Magistrate, but the said proceeding was stayed by the Patna High Court vide order dated 22.12.2009 passed in Cr.W.J.C. No. 80 of 2009. 8. It is also stated that the authorities again got a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. initiated on 20.11.2008 with respect to the land in question on the basis of an illegal direction of the District Magistrate, but the said proceeding was stayed by the Patna High Court vide order dated 22.12.2009 passed in Cr.W.J.C. No. 80 of 2009. 8. It is further claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner that when all the aforesaid efforts of the respondent authorities of the State of Bihar failed they got another proceeding initiated vide Appeal Case No. 1 of 2009 for correction of Municipal Survey Khatiyan made in the name of the Company under Rule 111/467 of the Bihar Survey & Settlement Manual, 1959 which is meant for the correction of fraudulent entries and in that proceeding it managed to obtain the impugned order dated 19.2.2009 (Annexure-4). 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents State of Bihar and its authorities (Respondent Nos. 1 to. 3 and 8) vehemently contested the claim of petitioner stating that the lands claimed by the petitioner were not Kaisare Hind Lands rather other Kaisare Hind Lands were acquired and hence, the provision of Rule 467 of the Bihar Survey & Settlement Manual, 1959 was applicable under which the said appeal was filed which was legal and proper. It was also stated that as per the provision of Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquired land cannot be sold, gifted, leased or mortgaged by the Company unless prior permission is obtained from the appropriate Government. It was further contended that similar provision has been made vide Section 8 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, but in spite of the aforesaid provision of law, the petitioner never tried to obtain any sanction from the government or the authorities concerned and hence even the Liquidator of the Company had no right to sell such lands. It was averred that in the aforesaid situation, it was necessary to make proper investigation with respect to the aforesaid points involved and accordingly, the Superintendent of Survey and Settlement rightly passed its impugned order dated 19.2.2009 (Annexure- 4) in Appeal Case No. 1 of 2009. 10. The provision of Rule 467 of Chapter-XXVIII (Appeal, Revision & Correction of Mistakes in the Published Record & Map) of the Bihar Survey and Settlement Manual, 1959 reads as follows: "467. 10. The provision of Rule 467 of Chapter-XXVIII (Appeal, Revision & Correction of Mistakes in the Published Record & Map) of the Bihar Survey and Settlement Manual, 1959 reads as follows: "467. Correction of fraudulent entries.It has been ruled that where it is desired to correct an entry in the finally published records that has been procured by fraud, the Settlement Officer has an inherent right to order the excision of the fraudulent entry and his act in doing so is a ministerial act; not open to appeal. At the same time the Settlement Officer should make the correct entry, leaving a note against the excised entry that it is fraudulent, and either stating his reasons in the record or making in the record a reference to a Proceeding in which those reasons have been stated, as may be more convenient." 11. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties as well as the materials on record and the provisions of law applicable thereto, it is quite apparent that the aforesaid Appeal No. 1 of 2009 had been filed by the State of Bihar and its authorities claiming that certain entries in the finally published records were fraudulent. From the records it is apparent that declaration for acquisition of lands were made on 15.9.1910 and the scheme was published in the Gazette on 28.9.1910 whereafter Municipal Survey Records with respect to the lands in question were prepared in the name of the company in the year 1931. Thereafter in the year 1977, the Company closed its operation and went into winding up/liquidation vide Company Petition No. 623 of 1977 filed before the Calcutta High Court and in that proceeding order dated 7.2.1992 was passed by the Calcutta High Court granting permission to liquidator of the petitioner company to sell the land in question at the highest price. This order had been upheld up to the Supreme Court in favour of the petitioner. 12. The District Board had also filed an Extraordinary Suit No. 8 of 1995 only for money claim against the petitioner company with respect to the lands in question before the Civil Court but the said suit was disposed of on 6.1.2006 by a compromise decree in favour of the petitioner which was also upheld up to the Supreme Court. 12. The District Board had also filed an Extraordinary Suit No. 8 of 1995 only for money claim against the petitioner company with respect to the lands in question before the Civil Court but the said suit was disposed of on 6.1.2006 by a compromise decree in favour of the petitioner which was also upheld up to the Supreme Court. The Union of India, the original owner had also challenged the Municipal Survey Khatiyan with respect to the lands in question in favour of the petitioner vide Appeal No. 24 of 1990 which was rejected by the Superintendent of Survey and Settlement vide order dated 2 2.2000 (Annexure-3). Thereafter, on the basis of the records and various orders of the Courts of law as well as possession of the petitioner, the recent Revisional Municipal Survey Khatiyan was prepared recording the lands in question in the name of the company. 13. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the entries were never challenged by the authorities concerned after the year 2000 and all of a sudden after about a decade they have raised the said issue and Superintendent of Survey and Settlement had entertained the same. Had there been any fraud or collusion the respondent authorities should have raised that objection at the relevant time before the relevant authority, but no such objection had been raised rather the orders of the Calcutta High Court and other authorities which were upheld up till the Supreme Court, were followed and even the State of Bihar expressed its inability to purchase the lands in question in auction sale by the Liquidator. There may be some competent authority provided in law, but when a court of law passes an order with respect to the subject matter and it is affirmed up till the highest Court, it assumes the authenticity of law itself and has to be abided by all concerned. 14. Thus, the respondents appeal bearing Appeal No. 1 of 2009 was not at all maintainable nor the Superintendent of Survey and Settlement had any jurisdiction or authority to exercise its inherent jurisdiction in the already settled matter, specially in view of his own earlier order passed in the year 2000 and the specific orders and directions of the Calcutta High Court. However, if the respondents State of Bihar and its authorities had any grievance they could have approached the Calcutta High Court before whom the Company Petition for liquidation of the company was pending. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the entire proceeding of Appeal Case No. 1 of 2009 alongwith the impugned order dated 19.2.2009 (Annexure-4) passed by the Superintendent of Survey and Settlement, Bhojpur are hereby quashed.