JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, J.C. to S.C. (L&C) for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner has been filed challenging the order dated 04.09.2001 passed by the respondent no. 3 in case No. 1/97, T.R. No. 79 R 15/2000-01 as contained in Annexure-15 to the writ petition alleging that the respondent no. 3 erroneously and arbitrarily cancelled the transfer made by Deed dated 16.04.1948 (Annexure-1) and all subsequent demands opened in respect of the land in question in the purported proceeding under section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The petitioner has also challenged the appellate order dated 20.08.2002 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Ranchi Misc. Appeal No. 067/2002 as contained in “Annexure-16” to the writ petition whereby the order passed by the respondent no. 3 has been confirmed. 3. Counsel for the petitioners by referring the impugned order as contained at Annexure-15 to the writ petition has submitted as follows: (a) The property in question is situated in Kamre Mauza being portion of R.S. Plot No. 1051 appertaining to Khata No. 60 , Plot No. 549, Area 1.25 acre and Plot 1051, Area 10.80 acre and total area 12.05 acre is recorded as gairmazarua khas parti pathaar in the revisional survey khatiyan. (b) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is an order of passed under section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and he points out that the reason for passing the impugned order is that the land lord were not competent to do settlement after 01.01.1946. He submits that the order dated 04.09.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner is apparently illegal. It has also been illegally and arbitrarily recorded that the Sri K.B. N. Singh, in whose favour settlement was made, never came in possession of the property. (c) Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the appellate court in its order dated 20.08.2002 which is contained in Annexure-16 to the writ petition has held that there is no evidence to show that Krishna Ballabh Narayan Singh actually came in the possession of the property and submits that the impugned order is perverse as there was enough material to show that Sri K.B. N. Singh came in possession of the property. (d) Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the 1987 BLT (Rep.) 217 and 1990 PLJR 165 and submits that these judgments goes to show that even if the settlement is made even after 01.01.1946 the settlement cannot be annulled under certain circumstances .He further submits that the said judgments are fully applicable in favour of the petitioners of this case in the facts and circumstances of this case. 4. Counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order has rightly been passed and there is clear findings of fact that there is no evidence to show that Sri K.B. N. Singh actually came in possession of the property at any point of time and the rent receipts which filed were found to be false upon verification from the circle office, therefore the impugned orders do not call for any interference by this Court. 5. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the writ petitioner on account of following facts and reasons that: (a) It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that the settlement was made by the land lord in favour of Sri K.B. N. Singh on 16.04.1948 i.e much before coming into force of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and thereafter Sri K.B. N. Singh came in possession of the said property. However from the perusal of the records and the impugned orders, there is clear finding that there is no evidence that Sri K.B. N. Singh ever came in possession of the property involved in this case. It further appears from the impugned order as contained in annexure 15 to the writ petition that the rent receipts filed by the petitioner were also found false after verification from the Circle Office. The appellate authority also in the appellate order again recorded a finding that there is no evidence on record that Sri K.B. N. Singh ever came in possession of the property involved in this case. The petitioner has failed to show any perversity or illegality in this concurrent finding of fact and accordingly no interference is called for under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The petitioner has failed to show any perversity or illegality in this concurrent finding of fact and accordingly no interference is called for under Article 226 of the constitution of India. Section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 reads as under:- (h) The Collector shall have power to make inquiries in respect of any transfer including the settlement or lease of any land comprised in such estate or tenure or the transfer of any kind 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 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 persons 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.] From perusal of section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 it is apparent that the said section is applicable for transfers after 1.1.1946. In the instant case there is a claim of settlement having been made in favour of Sri K.B. N. Singh by the land lord on 16.04.1948 i.e after the cut-off date i.e 1.1.1946 and accordingly the impugned proceeding under section 4(h) has been rightly initiated and the impugned orders have been rightly passed. (b) So far the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are concerned, they also do not help the petitioner in any manner. (b) So far the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are concerned, they also do not help the petitioner in any manner. (c) From the perusal of the judgment reported in 1987 BLT (Rep) 217 it is apparent that this Hon’ble court held in the said case that proceedings under section 4(h) for cancellation of settlement after expiry of several years was not maintainable even where the settlement was made after 1.1.1946 in the circumstances when the petitioner was found in possession of the disputed property, paying rent throughout and the settlement was acted upon by the government by accepting rent. In the instant case the settlement was of the year 1948 in favour of Sri K.B. N. Singh and there is no evidence on record that Sri K.B. N. Singh ever came in possession of the property involved in this case. Even the rent receipts filed by the petitioner were also found to be false after verification from the Circle Office. In such circumstances this judgment being relied upon by the petitioner does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. (d) From the perusal of the judgment reported in 1990(1) PLJR 165 it is apparent that in that case admittedly a settlement was made in the year 1945 i.e before the cut-off date of 1.1.1946 and therefore it was held that the said settlement was beyond the scope of section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act,1950. This judgement also does not help the petitioner in any manner as the settlement in this case was made after the cut-off date. 6. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case this court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned orders accordingly the writ petition dismissed.