ORDER A counter affidavit has been filed by the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not seek to file a reply. With consent of the parties, the writ petition has been heard for its final disposal at this stage itself. 2. The dispute lies in a very narrow compass. The dispute relates to about 2 Bighas, 7 Kathas, 10 Dhurs and 35 Dhurkis of land, appertaining to Municipal Survey No.10987, in the town of Darbhanga, recorded in the Survey Khata in the name of Maharaja Rameshwar Singh of Darbhanga, as the landlord and described as Ba-kabje Malik. 3. The order and the action under challenge is that of the Collector of the District-Darbhanga, whereby in purported exercise of powers under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the jamabandi that was created in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. In short, the case of the State is that this land was transferred by Maharaja Kameshwar Singh in the name of his minor nephew Raj Kumar Subeshwar Singh by registered deed on 2.8.1948. That transfer, being after 1.1.1946, was to be annulled in view of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner states that this very issue in respect of this very settlement was taken-up by the Collector, Darbhanga way back, immediately after vesting of Jamindari, and he had made a recommendation for the settlement to be set aside as it was in relation to a tank in which the general public had a right. To this recommendation the Divisional Commissioner had acceded. It was then sent to the State for approval of the annulment. The opinion of the Land Reforms Commissioner was sought for, who clearly opined that the land being settled, was less than five acres, out of mutual love and affection by the ex-proprietor to his minor nephew and, as such, it should not be annulled. When the matter came before the Government, the Government rejected the recommendation of the Collector and the Divisional Commissioner and held that the settlement should not be annulled and refused to grant approval. All this was done in Case No.103 of 1954-55 of the District of Darbhanga (Revenue Department File No.E/XVII-331/57). When the matter came before the Government, the Government rejected the recommendation of the Collector and the Divisional Commissioner and held that the settlement should not be annulled and refused to grant approval. All this was done in Case No.103 of 1954-55 of the District of Darbhanga (Revenue Department File No.E/XVII-331/57). All these proceedings are evident from Annexure-13 to the writ petition and Annexure-16 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. 5. It is, thus, submitted that when all these aspects were already enquired into way back in 1957 and the Government had already taken a decision, then now after 50 years, merely on change of opinion, the view cannot be changed. Exercise of right of the State under Section 4(h) was taken-up and refused after full deliberation. Consequent thereto, transfers were made and third party rights were created, the State cannot go back nor can the Collector at all be permitted to take a different view of the matter and that too after almost half a century. 6. In the counter affidavit, the stand taken is that these proceedings have been annexed by the petitioner from a Guide to the disposal of cases under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, which cannot be said to be authentic. All I can say is, I am surprised at the stand of the learned Collector, who, I believe, is an I.A.S. Officer. This is not a Guide which had been privately published. The entire Guide has been appended as Annexure-16 to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner, which is a Guide published under the authority and by the State Government itself, endorsed for official use only. It is a document of the State. If the Collector had any doubts in the matter, the records were with him. He could have referred to the records and then disputed the claim that the Guide was not correct. He did no such thing. He merely states that the lands appeared to be slightly different though it is the same tank, the same very settlement that is in question. 7. He could have referred to the records and then disputed the claim that the Guide was not correct. He did no such thing. He merely states that the lands appeared to be slightly different though it is the same tank, the same very settlement that is in question. 7. Once, having considered the matter, in my view, the State had sought to exercise its power and authority under Section 4(h) and the State, ultimately, having refused to grant approval and clearly held that the settlement cannot be annulled under Section 4(h) of the Act, it did not lay with the Collector of the district to re-initiate proceedings for annulment of the settlement after half a century. Much water has flown down the Ganges since then. Third party rights had been created, transfer had been effected, all that cannot be set to naught now. There cannot be a review or a change of opinion and that too at such distant point of time when the matter had already been fully considered by the State. Thus, in my view, the petitioner is correct to urge that the exercise of power by the Collector, in the facts and circumstances of the case, under Section 4(h) of the Act was wholly without jurisdiction. That being so the impugned orders of the Collector, as contained in Annexure-11, dated 17.8.2013, passed in Revision Case No. 151/2012 (Sita Devi. Vs. Shrikant Mishra) cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is, thus, allowed.