ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, A.C. to S.C. (L&C) appearing on behalf of respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “For quashing the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner dated 17.07.2001 passed in Misc. Case No. 4/97TR 129R 15/2000-2001 which has been confirmed by the learned Commissioner, South Chotanagpur, Division, Ranchi vide Ranchi Misc. Appeal No. 62 of 2005 dated 20.12.2005 whereby and whereunder the demand/ Zamabandi running in the name of the members of the said society Mount Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti has been cancelled in respect of their land of Plot No. 1441 Khata No. 351 measuring area 3.80 acres situated in village-Arsandey thana No. 159 R.S. Plot No. 1441 Khata No. 351 Kanke, District-Ranchi. The petitioner further prays for a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to forth with re-open the Zamabandi in the name of the members of the said society and also accept rent thereof in respect of aforesaid land of the members of the Society;” 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits as under:- a. The petitioner is concerned only with land in Khata No. 351 plot no. 1441 of Arsande village measuring 3.80 acres in district Ranchi. He submits that so far as property in relation to Mouja –Boreya, Khata No. 402, Plot no. 2094 is concerned, the petitioner has no concern. b. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the property in question was recorded as Gair Majurua Khas in the revisional survey Khatiyan and the ex-landlord of the property namely Baldeo Narayan Tiwari died issueless. His nephew Jodh Narayan Tiwari settled the land belonging to Khata No. 351, Plot No. 1441 area 3.80 acre with Smt. Kumudini Sinha in the year 1952 by virtue of a Sada Hukumnama who in turn sold the land to Mrs. A.B. Davis by registered sale deed on 11.04.1967 who in turn got her name mutated in Register II vide mutation case No. 226 R/26/81-82 and thereafter she sold the entire land to Mount Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti in the year 1989. The said Samiti had sold the entire land to 38 different people through registered sale deed who also got their name mutated in Register II. The said Samiti had sold the entire land to 38 different people through registered sale deed who also got their name mutated in Register II. He submits that in the order of transfer, there is no illegality, but a notice under Section 4 (h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. c. He submits that a proposal for initiation of proceeding under Section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 was received through Deputy Collector Land Reforms vide his order dated 08.11.99 which was endorsed by Additional Collector vide order dated 17.08.2000 and the proceeding under section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 was initiated. d. The petitioner had filed its show cause and narrated the entire facts before the authority. The authority passed the order dated 17.07.2001 and recorded findings against the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority which was numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 62/2005 which was dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2005. e. The only point which has been argued by the petitioner is that that the Jamabandi was opened in the name of Smt. Kumudini Sinha and the subsequent purchasers and it was long running Jamabandi, therefore the Jamabandi could not be cancelled by the respondents. He submits that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the original authority as well as appellate authority while passing the order under Section 4 (h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950. 5. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits as under:- a. As per the provisions of Section 4 (h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950, the Sada hukumnama could not have been executed by any person including the ex-landlord. b. He submits that in the instant case, Hukumnama was said to have been claimed to have been executed by the nephew of Mr. Baldeo Narayan Tiwari who died issueless. c. As per the case of the petitioner himself, Hukumnama was executed in the year 1952 i.e. admittedly after 01.01.1946 being cut off date mentioned in Section 4 (h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 therefore the Sada Hukumnama was itself an illegal document and accordingly the subsequent action pursuant to Sada Hukumnama (said to have been executed in the year 1952) are illegal. d. Therefore Jamabandi opened and mutations made subsequently, being consequential orders, are also illegal. d. Therefore Jamabandi opened and mutations made subsequently, being consequential orders, are also illegal. e. He submits that before the appellate authority the appeal was filed after lapse of more than four years and the Appellate Authority has refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal. f. However, the Appellate Authority has considered the case on merit also and has held that the Hukumnama was not genuine. g. Counsel for the respondents submits that the finding regarding genuineness of Hukumnama has not even been disputed by the petitioners in the entire writ petition and only ground which has been taken by the petitioner in the writ petition and argued by the counsel for the petitioner is that long running jamabandi could not have been cancelled. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds that the proceeding under Section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 is attracted if the condition precedent in the said Section is satisfied. Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 for the purposes of this case reads as under:- “(h) The Collector shall have power to make inquiries in respect of any transfer including the settlement of lease of any land comprised in such estate or tenure or the transfer of any king 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 there under the Collector may, after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard annul such transfer, dispossess the person claiming under 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. From perusal of Section 4 (h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act it is apparent that the transfers made after 1st January 1946 can be subject matter of the proceeding under Section 4 (h). Admittedly in the instant case, Hukumnama was executed after 01.01.1946. This court is of the considered view that the proceeding under Section 4 (h) could have been initiated by the respondent authority. 8. In the instant case, the respondent authority found that the alleged Hukumnama, on the one hand was of the year 1952 and the same itself was not a genuine document. 9. This court finds that the following findings have been given by the Deputy Commissioner in order dated 17.07.2001 in connection with the said Hukumnama:- (a) The Sada hukumnama has been alleged to be issued by one Sri Jodh Narayan Tiwari. Admittedly Jodh Narayan Tiwari was not the landlord of the village Arsande. Needless to say that only landlords were competent to issue Sada hukumnama. (b) The hukumnama has been alleged to be issued in the year 1952 whereas landlords were competent to do so only prior to 1.1.1946. (c) A perusal of the hukumnama shows that it is not numbered whereas all genuine sada hukumnama are given a serial number by the landlord (d) This Sada hukumnama carried initial of some officer with the date as 1.5.1972. Had it been actually issued in the year 1952 then why it was not produced before any Revenue Officer or any court of law prior to 1972. (e) Had it been actually issued in the year 1952 then why didn’t Mrs. Kumudini Sinha get her name mutated in Register-II on the basis of this hukumnama? No Rent Receipt has been given in support of the Sada hukumnama. All the points mentioned above suggest that the story of settlement of this land by way of Sada hukumnama has been fabricated with a view to grab Government land. Kumudini Sinha get her name mutated in Register-II on the basis of this hukumnama? No Rent Receipt has been given in support of the Sada hukumnama. All the points mentioned above suggest that the story of settlement of this land by way of Sada hukumnama has been fabricated with a view to grab Government land. There is nothing on record to suggest that Mrs. Kumudini Sinha actually came in possession of the land in question on the basis of alleged Sada hukumnama. Therefore, all the subsequent transactions originating from Mrs. Kumudini Sinha, Mrs. A.B. Davis and Mount Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti are bad in the eyes of law and revenue procedures.” In this background the impugned order dated 17.07.2001 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner Ranchi. This court finds that it has been stated in the writ petition that rent receipt was issued by Jodh Narayan Tiwari, but neither any detail has been mentioned in connection with this rent receipt nor a copy of the same has not been filed along with the writ petition. This rent receipt was not even filed or produced before the authorities below as is apparent from the impugned orders itself. In this background this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 17.07.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Ranchi which is a well reasoned order and the Deputy Commissioner has rightly held that all subsequent transactions held pursuant to this sada hukumnama are bad in the eyes of law . (f) As the entire claim of the petitioner including subsequent opening of Jamabandi over the property in question is based on sada hukumnama which was not found to be a genuine document by the Deputy Commissioner Ranchi, and this finding was confirmed by the appellate authority, this court is of the considered view that the impugned order of cancellation of Jamabandi are only consequential order passed on adverse findings recorded in the proceedings under section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950. This court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot claim any legal right, title, interest or possession over the immoveable property on the basis of an unregistered document i.e. sada hukumnama which itself was found to be not genuine, even if jamabandi was opened and continued on the basis of such document. This court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot claim any legal right, title, interest or possession over the immoveable property on the basis of an unregistered document i.e. sada hukumnama which itself was found to be not genuine, even if jamabandi was opened and continued on the basis of such document. (g) This court further finds that in the entire writ petition the petitioner has not even challenged the finding recorded by in the impugned order dated 17.07.2001 regarding the genuineness of the sada hukumnama and the only point taken in the writ petition and argued by the counsel for the petitioner is that the long running jamabandi cannot be cancelled. In these circumstances no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner. (h) This court further finds that the appellate authority has observed that the appeal itself was hopelessly time barred and the same was filed after the lapse of four years. In the entire writ petition, there is no averment in connection with delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority and there is no averment as to whether any petition for condonation of delay was ever filed or not. Further, in the entire writ petition there is no statement as to why the petitioner took four years time to file the appeal before the appellate authority. Considering this aspect of the matter, this court finds that the appellate authority has rightly held the appeal is time barred and rightly rejected the appeal at the time of admission stage itself. (i) This court also finds that the appellate authority apart from holding that the appeal is time barred, also decided the case on merits any upheld the order dated 17.07.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. In view of the concurrent findings of both the courts below that alleged Sada Hukumnama claimed by the petitioner is not a genuine document, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. 10. In view of the aforesaid findings and under the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is dismissed.