JUDGMENT : The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have raised no complain regarding audio and visual quality. I.A. No. 11546 of 2018 2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 96 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 11546 of 2018 is allowed and delay of 96 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 786 of 2018 6. This intra-court appeal preferred by the State of Jharkhand is directed against the order/judgment dated 14.06.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 593 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the impugned order dated 09.09.2016 passed in Misc. (4h) Case No. 110/2016-17 by Additional Collector, Bokaro whereby the long running Jamabandi of the writ petitioner being Jamabandi No. 1665, appertaining to Khata No. 59, Plot Nos. 426 and 450, Thana No. 38, area 103 acres, Mouza Tetulia, District Bokaro was cancelled, has been quashed. The writ Court has also quashed the order as contained in Memo No. 6387 dated 15.12.2016 passed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the consent for cancellation of Jamabandi of the writ petitioner has been given with a direction to take possession of the land. Further the writ Court has quashed the order as contained in letter No. 80/Revenue dated 18.01.2017 issued under the Signature of Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro whereby the Circle Officer, Chas has been directed to delete the name of the writ petitioner as mentioned in Register II at page 1665 by cancelling the Jamabandi and to take possession of the land. 7. The brief facts of the case, which are required to be referred herein for proper adjudication of the lis, are as under: The land appertaining to Khata No. 59, Plot Nos. 426 and 450, area 103 acres, situated in village -Tetulia, Anchal -Chas, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said land’) was given by Shri Chamtu Singh to Raj Kumar Singh Tikat by way of Jot Patta vide deed no. 426 and 450, area 103 acres, situated in village -Tetulia, Anchal -Chas, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said land’) was given by Shri Chamtu Singh to Raj Kumar Singh Tikat by way of Jot Patta vide deed no. 311 dated 31.12.1893 and the rent was assessed vide Rent Suit No.260 of 1928-29. Thereafter, vide Deed No. 5018 dated 25.11.1933 the said land was surrendered. The Deputy Collector, Purulia vide Certificate Case No. 191 of 1933 settled the said land in an auction proceeding in favour of one Samir Mahat @ Samir Mahto (the ancestor of the writ petitioner) who came in possession of the same. On 26.06.2012, a certificate was issued by the Circle Officer, Chas, certifying that the said land was settled in the name of Samir Mahto, the grandfather of the writ petitioner vide Auction Certificate Case No.191/1933. One Niraj Mohan submitted an application before the Additional Collector, Bokaro for verification of the land of the writ petitioner alleging the said land to be “Gair Abad Malik”, as per the Khatian, whereas the mutation of the said land was done and the rent receipts were being issued in favour of the writ petitioner. On the basis of the said application, a proceeding being Misc. Case No.56/2015-16 was initiated, wherein the final order dated 17.03.2016 was passed after making due enquiry and considering the report of the Halka Karamchari, which says that the present raiyats i.e Izhar Hussain and Akhtar Hussain are the recorded raiyats of Register-II in Thoka (Lot) No. 1665 which is absolutely correct and proper and, thus, the application of Niraj Mohan was held to be baseless and false and mutation done in favour of writ petitioner was confirmed. Thereafter, the Circle Officer, Chas issued a notice dated 30.05.2016 intimating the writ petitioner to appear on 14.06.2016 to put forth his stand as Jamabandi over the said land was found to be illegal and suspicious and a case was instituted by the Additional Collector, Bokaro, being Misc. (4h) case No. 110 of 2016-17, in which, a notice was issued to the writ petitioner from the Court of Addl. Collector, Bokaro seeking reply as to why the Jamabandi of the petitioner over the said land be not cancelled u/s 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act, 1950’). (4h) case No. 110 of 2016-17, in which, a notice was issued to the writ petitioner from the Court of Addl. Collector, Bokaro seeking reply as to why the Jamabandi of the petitioner over the said land be not cancelled u/s 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act, 1950’). Pursuant thereto, the writ petitioner filed his reply and thereafter final order was passed on 09.09.2016 by the Additional Collector, Bokaro as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro whereby Jamabandi of the writ petitioner over the said land was annulled holding, inter alia, that the same was illegal and false as per section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. 8. Aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioner approached this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 09.09.2016 passed in Misc. (4h) Case No. 110 of 2016-17 and the consequential decisions of the authorities for cancellation of Jamabandi. 9. The writ petitioner agitated before the writ Court that the land in question came in possession of the predecessors-in-interest of the writ petitioner by virtue of Auction Certificate Case No. 191 of 1933, whereby Jamabandi was created initially in the name of the grandfather of the writ petitioner and the land was settled in the name of Samir Mahto (the grandfather of the petitioner) and thereafter in the name of the writ petitioner. It was further agitated that the Jamabandi created by the order of the Circle Officer was declared false and fabricated only on the ground that the same was written by a ball pen stating that during the year 1965-66 ball pen was not in use. However, as a matter of fact, ball pen was invented in the year 1938 itself. Further submission was made before the writ Court that the concerned authorities completely ignored the documents produced by the writ petitioner which are of the year 1933 and based their order primarily on issue of the invention of the ball pen during the relevant year. Further point was raised that in the impugned order dated 09.09.2016 the respondents-authorities have observed that the land has been notified as a Forest Land vide notification dated 14.05.1958 but the said notification has also not been brought on record by the respondents-authorities. Further point was raised that in the impugned order dated 09.09.2016 the respondents-authorities have observed that the land has been notified as a Forest Land vide notification dated 14.05.1958 but the said notification has also not been brought on record by the respondents-authorities. Moreover, the raiyati land cannot be notified as a forest land unless and until the same is acquired after giving proper compensation. Further, after the land is being declared as a forest land, the same is also required to be shown in map of the forest department, but the forest department could not produce any such map of the land which could have confirmed the said notification showing the land in question as forest land. It was further submitted that a criminal case was instituted by the concerned department regarding the said land, which was numbered as Sector-XII P.S Case No.50 of 2016, wherein the S.I.T. had investigated the matter but it could not find any such map of the aforesaid land from the forest department. Further submission was made that in order to assess the veracity of the Auction Certificate Case instituted in the year 1933 due communication was made before the Purulia Sub-Registrar vide letter no.1282 dated 29.06.2016, but without waiting for the report from the side of Purulia Sub-Registrar, the impugned order was passed and, as such the authenticity of the said document could not be verified. It was further submitted that the long running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled by initiating a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 as a summary proceeding as the proceeding under Section 4 (h) can only be initiated if any transfer was made at any time after the 1st day of January 1946 with an object to defeat the provisions of the Act, 1950 or for causing loss to the State or for obtaining higher compensation from the State. The writ petitioner further raised the issue by referring to Register-II Tenancy Ledger wherein mutation was granted in the name of Samir Mahto son of Bhuran Mahto-caste Muslim (the ancestor of the petitioner). Initially the rent receipts were being issued regularly in the name of Samir Mahto and, subsequently, the same were issued in the name of Izhar Hussain (the writ petitioner), who is the grandson of Samir Mahto. Initially the rent receipts were being issued regularly in the name of Samir Mahto and, subsequently, the same were issued in the name of Izhar Hussain (the writ petitioner), who is the grandson of Samir Mahto. The writ petitioner also sold 6 decimals of land out of the said land to one Badu Ram, who got his name mutated vide correction slip dated 20.11.2015 and, thereafter, the rent receipt was also issued in his name in respect of the land purchased by him. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner put reliance on a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Chancla Devi (L.P.A No. 142 of 2010 with L.P.A No. 307 of 2009). 10. The respondents-State of Jharkhand, the appellants herein, had put their appearance through their counsel and defended the orders passed by the revenue authorities, inter alia, on the ground that the land in question is recorded as “Gair Abad Malik” in the Khatian, and the nature of the land is Forest/Jungle-Jhari. The said land has been notified as protected forest vide notification no. C/F17014/58-1429R dated 24.05.1958. It was further submitted that the order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the Additional Collector, Bokaro and the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro have been approved by the State Government. It was further submitted that the writ petitioner had not submitted the purported “Jot Patta” vide deed no. 311 dated 31.12.1893 before the revenue authorities or even before the writ Court. Further, no document in support of the surrender of the land was filed before the writ Court and, therefore, the same is liable to be rejected. Further submission was made that the surrender deed no. 5018 is of 25.11.1933, however, the dates of certificate of sale has been mentioned as 23.10.1933 and 28.11.1933 which creates suspicion and as such this fact cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction of this Court as it is settled principle of law that the title can be declared only on the strength of adducing sufficient evidence, but the writ petitioner has not been able to prima facie establish the same. The ancestors of the writ petitioner were never in possession of the said land. The Jamabandi was opened without any previous permission of the competent authority. The purported Jamabandi No.1665 was opened vide order dated 17.03.2016 passed in Misc. The ancestors of the writ petitioner were never in possession of the said land. The Jamabandi was opened without any previous permission of the competent authority. The purported Jamabandi No.1665 was opened vide order dated 17.03.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 56 of 2015-16 in the name of the writ petitioner after making manipulation in Register-II. The land in question was recorded in the Khatiyan as “Gair Abad Malik”. Therefore, the question regarding acquisition of the said land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not arise at all after vesting of the Zamindari. All Gair Abad Malik lands were vested in State Government except those in which the returns were filed by the ex-landlord showing any settlement to this effect. 11. The writ Court, after appreciating the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, came to the conclusive finding holding therein that the order dated 09.09.2016 and consequential orders passed by the respondents-authorities suffer from infirmity and, therefore, the same were quashed and set aside, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal. 12. This Court, after having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record as also findings recorded by the learned writ Court, has found therefrom that the writ petitioner is claiming title over the land in question appertaining to Khata No. 59, Plot Nos. 426 and 450, Thana No. 38, area 103 acres, situated at Mouza Tetulia, Anchal-Chas, District Bokaro, which was given by one Chamtu Singh to Raj Kumar Singh Tikat by way of Jot Patta vide deed no. 311 dated 31.12.1893. The rent was assessed vide Rent Suit No. 260 of 1928-29. The said land was surrendered vide Deed No. 5018 dated 25.11.1933. The Deputy Collector, Purulia vide Certificate Case No.191 of 1933 settled the said land in an auction proceeding in favour of one Samir Mahat @ Samir Mahto, the ancestor of the writ petitioner, who came in possession of the same. On 26.06.2012, a certificate was issued by the Circle Officer, Chas certifying that the said land was settled in favour of Samir Mahto, the grandfather of the writ petitioner vide Auction Certificate Case No.191 of 1933. A proceeding, being Misc. On 26.06.2012, a certificate was issued by the Circle Officer, Chas certifying that the said land was settled in favour of Samir Mahto, the grandfather of the writ petitioner vide Auction Certificate Case No.191 of 1933. A proceeding, being Misc. Case No. 56/2015-16, was initiated on the basis of complaint made by one Niraj Mohan seeking enquiry about alleged settlement of the said land in favour of the writ petitioner on the ground that the said land is “Gair Abad Malik”, wherein the final order was passed on 17.03.2016 after making due enquiry and considering the report of the Halka Karamchari stating, inter alia, that the present raiyats i.e., Izhar Hussain and Akhtar Hussain, are the recorded raiyats of Register-II in Thoka (Lot) No. 1665 which is absolutely correct and proper and thus the application of Niraj Mohan was held to be baseless and false. Thereafter, a notice was issued on 30.05.2016 intimating the writ petitioner to appear on 14.06.2016 to put forth his stand as Jamabandi over the said land was found to be illegal and suspicious. Thereafter, a case was instituted by the Additional Collector, Bokaro, being Misc. (4h) case No. 110 of 2016-17, which finally culminated to passing of impugned order dated 09.09.2016 whereby the Jamabandi of the writ petitioner over the said land was annulled holding, inter alia, that the same was illegal and false as per section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. 13. The writ petitioner-respondent herein, has questioned the validity of the order dated 09.09.2016, inter alia, on the ground that the land was initially settled in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the writ petitioner by virtue of Auction Certificate Case No. 191 of 1933 and since the date of aforesaid settlement the predecessors-in-interest of the writ petitioner were in possession of the land in question and now the writ petitioner is in possession over the said land. It has further been submitted that the issue about nature of the land as to be “Gair Abad Malik” has already been decided by order passed by the respondents-authorities in Misc. Case No. 56 of 2015-16 wherein final order was passed on 17.03.2016 holding that Izhar Hussain and Akhtar Hussain are the recorded raiyats of Register-II in Thoka (Lot) No. 1665 but the Circle Officer without taking into consideration the fact that final order dated 17.03.2016 has been passed in Misc. Case No. 56 of 2015-16 wherein final order was passed on 17.03.2016 holding that Izhar Hussain and Akhtar Hussain are the recorded raiyats of Register-II in Thoka (Lot) No. 1665 but the Circle Officer without taking into consideration the fact that final order dated 17.03.2016 has been passed in Misc. Case No. 56/2015-16, which having not been questioned, initiated a fresh proceeding by issuing notice upon the writ petitioner in Misc. 4(h) Case No. 110/2016-17. But the question herein is that when the order 17.03.2016 was already passed in Misc. Case No. 56/2015-16, which having not been questioned and thereby has attained its finality, there was no occasion to initiate a fresh proceeding by issuing notice upon the writ petitioner on 30.05.2016 in Misc. (4h) Case No. 110 of 2016-17. Further the land in question was settled in the year 1933 vide Auction Certificate Case No. 191 of 1933 in an auction proceeding. But without appreciating the fact about applicability of provisions of Land Reforms Act, which grants power upon the Collector to initiate a proceeding, if any transfer has been made on and after 01.01.1946 in order to defeat the object and intent of the Bihar Land Reforms Act but herein the claim made by way of auction certificate made in the year 1933 is admittedly prior to 1946 and as such provision of section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act will not been applicable in the facts of this case. Further ground has been agitated that once Jamabandi has been created the same cannot be cancelled in purported exercise of Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 since the said power does not confer upon the Deputy Collector of the State Government to cancel the Jamabandi rather it confer powers 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 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, but this fact has not been appreciated by the Revenue authorities while canceling Jamabandi and, therefore, the learned Single Judge by quashing the impugned order has committed no error and the same requires no interference by this Court. 14. On the other hand, the State-appellant has agitated the issue that the land in question has been recorded as “Gair Abad Malik” and as per the provision of Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 the said land cannot be settled in favour of the raiyats and, therefore, gross illegality has been committed in opening Jamabandi in favour of predecessors-in-interest of the writ petitioner, which has been taken into consideration by the revenue authorities and thereafter the impugned orders have been passed by cancelling the Jamabandi granted in the name of predecessors-in-interest of the writ petitioner as also mutation rent in the name of the writ petitioner, hence the learned Single Judge ought not have interfered with the impugned orders. 15. This Court, on the basis of aforesaid rival submissions, has found the legal issues about the applicability of the provision of Section 4(h), as under: “Whether in the facts of the case the provision as contained under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act is made to be applicable and as to whether under the provision of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act Jamabandi granted in favour of any raiyats can be cancelled?” 16. This Court, in order to adjudicate this legal issue deem it fit and proper to go across the preamble of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, which says that for the transference to the State of the interests of proprietors and tenure-holders in land and of the mortgagees and lessees of such interests including interests in trees, forests, fisheries, jalkars, ferries, hats, bazars, mines and minerals and to provide for the constitution of a Land Commission for the State of Bihar with powers to advise the State Government on the agrarian policy to be pursued by the State Government consequent upon such transference and for other matters connected therewith. The intention behind the proviso to provide for the transference to the State of the interests of proprietors and tenure holders in land and of mortgagees and lessees of such interests as enshrined in the directive principles of our Constitution of India under Articles 39 (B) and 39(C). Section 4 of the Act, 1950 provides consequences of the vesting of an estate or tenure in the State. Subsection 4(b) thereof says that all rents, cesses and royalties accruing in respect of lands comprised in such estate or tenure on or after the date of vesting shall be payable to the State and not to the outgoing proprietor or tenure-holder and any payment made in contravention of this clause shall not be binding on the State Government. Subsection 4(b) thereof says that all rents, cesses and royalties accruing in respect of lands comprised in such estate or tenure on or after the date of vesting shall be payable to the State and not to the outgoing proprietor or tenure-holder and any payment made in contravention of this clause shall not be binding on the State Government. Sub-section 4 (h) provides power upon the Collector 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 is satisfied that such transfer was made at any time after the 1st day of January, 1946, with the object of defeating any provisions of this Act or causing loss to the State or obtaining higher compensation thereunder 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 and further provided 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. It is, thus, evident that Section 4(h) confers power upon the Collector to effect any transfer if such transfer is found to be for the purpose of frustrating the intent and purport of the Act in respect of transfer made any time after 1st January, 1946. The issue pertaining to applicability of provision of Section 4 (h) fell for consideration before Patna High Court in the case of Laxman Sahni Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. The issue pertaining to applicability of provision of Section 4 (h) fell for consideration before Patna High Court in the case of Laxman Sahni Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1990 (1) PLJR 170 , wherein it has been laid down to the effect that recourse for cancellation of Jamabandi under the Sections can be taken only where any estate or tenure or any part thereof vests in the State. Section 4(h) clothes the Collector with jurisdiction to make enquiries in respect of transfers made any time after 1st January, 1946. Further, in the case of Sri Rama Prasad Singh & Ors Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors reported in 1990 (1) PLJR 165 , it has been held that annulment of settlement made in 1945 on the assumption that it was made within the family to deprive the valuable land is mere presumption. On a plain reading of the provision it is obvious that the Collector while exercising power to make inquiries in respect of any transfer must be satisfied that such transfer was made at any time after 1st January, 1946. No finding recorded that the transfer was made after 1st January, 1946. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector being an adjudicating body could not recommend for such annulment and had to arrive at his own conclusions in terms of Section 4(h) of the Act. 17. It further requires to refer herein that for vesting of the estate or tenure in a notification to that effect is required to be issued under Section 4 to the effect that the rent vested in the State of Bihar free from all encumbrances from the date of notification by operation of Section 4 such estate or tenure including the interests of the proprietor in such estate or tenure other than the interests of raiyats or underraiyats shall, with effect from the date of vesting, vest absolutely in the State free from all incumbrances and such proprietor or tenure-holder shall cease to have any interest in such estate or other than the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of this Act. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Brighu Nath Sahay Singh & Ors Vs. Md. Khalilur Rahman & Ors reported in (1996) 1 PLJR (SC) 65. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Brighu Nath Sahay Singh & Ors Vs. Md. Khalilur Rahman & Ors reported in (1996) 1 PLJR (SC) 65. Herein, as would appear from the materials available on record, that the State Government has not produced any document pertaining to notification issued under Section 4 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. Further the reference of notification issued by the forest department as contained in notification no. C/F/17014/58-1429R dated 24.05.1958 has been mentioned but the admitted fact after going through the Section 4 of the Act, 1950 is that there must be a notification under the provision of Section 4 of the Act, 1950 and if any notification has been issued by the forest department that cannot be said to be issued under the purported exercise of power conferred under Section 4 of the Act, 1950. 18. Admitted fact herein is that the transfer has been made much prior to 1st January, 1946 i.e. sometimes in the year 1933 by way of Auction Settlement being Auction Certificate Case No. 191 of 1933 and, therefore, in the facts of this case the provision of Section 4 (h) of the Act, 1950 should not have been initiated by the Circle Officer taking into consideration the settlement of the land in the year 1933 which exclude the land in question from the purview of Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. 19. Further, even accepting the submission to the effect that the notification dated 24.05.1958 issued by the forest department holding the land as forest land and the fact that there was auction settlement in the year 1933, the question remains that under what authority and jurisdiction notification was issued in the year 1958 without resorting to any provision of law or without getting any declaration invalidating of the proceeding being Auction Certificate Case No. 191 of 1933. Further, the claim of the State-appellant that the land has been recorded as “Gair Abad Malik” but again the question would be that on what basis the land in question was recorded as “Gair Abad Malik” without obtaining reversal of the order passed in Auction Certificate Case No. 191 of 1933. Further, the claim of the State-appellant that the land has been recorded as “Gair Abad Malik” but again the question would be that on what basis the land in question was recorded as “Gair Abad Malik” without obtaining reversal of the order passed in Auction Certificate Case No. 191 of 1933. Further, this Court has found from the record that on the basis of a complaint made by one Niraj Mohan about the illegal transfer of the said land basis upon which a report was called for from the concerned Halka Karamachari, who has submitted a report to the effect that the present raiyats i.e., Izhar Hussain and Akhtar Hussain, are the recorded raiyats of Register-II in Thoka (Lot) No. 1665 which is absolutely correct and proper and thus the application of Niraj Mohan was held to be baseless and false, but the revenue authorities have very surprisingly, without questioning the order passed by the revenue authority in Misc. Case No. 56/2015-16 dated 17.03.2016 wherein it was held that the complaint made by Niraj Mohan is baseless, has again issued a notice upon the writ petitioner and stating the reply of the writ petitioner to be dissatisfactory initiated a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950, being Misc. (4h) Case No. 110 of 2016-17 wherein again order dated 09.09.2016 was passed, which according to us, cannot be said to be sustainable in the eyes of law without reversal of the order passed on 17.03.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 56/2015-16. It further transpires from the record that for knowing the genuineness of the order passed in Auction Certificate Case No. 191 of 1933, correspondence was made to the concerned authority at Purulia in the State of West Bengal but without waiting for any report from the concerned authority, the Circle Officer has passed the order dated 09.09.2016, which also casts doubt upon the proceeding initiated by way of filing Misc. (4h) Case No. 110 of 2016-17 and the final order dated 09.09.2016 as if any report was sought for in order to verify the genuineness of the document pertaining to Auction Certificate Case No. 191 of 1933 it was incumbent upon the concerned authority, who was in sesin of Misc. (4h) Case No. 110 of 2016-17 to wait for the outcome of the said report, but having not done so gross illegality has been committed. (4h) Case No. 110 of 2016-17 to wait for the outcome of the said report, but having not done so gross illegality has been committed. It is further settled position of law that Jamabandi once created cannot be annulled. Herein it is admitted fact that Jamabandi can be created under the provisions of Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. We have gone across the provisions thereof, as contained in the Act, 1973 and have found that no provision confer upon any authority of the State to cancel the Jamabandi. The question would be that in absence of any power conferred by Statute upon any of the revenue authority can Jamabandi be cancelled. The answer of this question would be in negative as statute confers power upon the authority and the authority can purportedly exercise the power conferred upon it under the statutory power and if any decision is taken in absence of any provision the same would be said to be nullity in the eye of law when found to be without jurisdiction. It is further settled that long running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled, save and except by filing a suit before the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramayan Yadav & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors reported in (2013) 3 PLJR 533 . 20. This Court, after having gone into the details as above as also travelling across the impugned order wherefrom it is evident that the learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment in The State of Jharkhand & Ors vs. Chanchala Devi passed in L.P.A. No. 142 of 2010 with L.P.A. No. 307 of 2009, wherein it has been held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that if the State Government is claiming ownership upon the property in question which is in possession of the tenant/raiyat and his/her predecessors-in-title since 09.06.1942, Civil Suit is the only remedy available with the State Government. Further it transpires from the impugned order that the learned Single Judge has also discussed about applicability of Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, which confers power upon the State Government to issue notification in the official Gazette for declaring the provision of this Chapter applicable to any forest land or waste-land which is not included in a reserved forest or over which the Government has proprietary rights, or to the whole or any part of the forest-produce of which the Government is entitled. Sub-Section (2) thereof further provides that the forest-land and waste-land comprised in any such notification, shall be called a “protected-forest”. Sub-section (3) thereof says that no such notification shall be made unless the nature and extent of the rights of Government and of private persons in or over the forest-land or waste-land comprised therein have been inquired into and recorded at a survey or settlement, or in such other manner as the State Government, thinks sufficient. Every such record shall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved; provided that, if, in the case of any forest-land or waste-land, the State Government thinks that such inquiry and record are necessary, but that they will occupy such length of time as in the meantime to endanger the rights of Government, the State Government may, pending such inquiry and record, declare such land to be a protected forest, but so as not to abridge or affect any existing rights of individuals or communities. Therefore, Section 29 (1) explicitly provides that the State Government may notify any forest land or waste land as protected forest over which the Government has proprietary rights, or to the whole or any part of the forest produce of which the Government is entitled. The condition precedent for issuing any notification under section 29 (1) is the inquiry be conducted under section 29 (3) regarding the nature and extent of right of the Government and of the private persons upon the forest land or the waste land. 21. The condition precedent for issuing any notification under section 29 (1) is the inquiry be conducted under section 29 (3) regarding the nature and extent of right of the Government and of the private persons upon the forest land or the waste land. 21. We have also gone across the notification dated 24.05.1958, published in the Bihar Gazette on 09.07.1958, which reads as under: “The nature and extent of the rights of Government and of private persons in or over the forest land and waste lands comprised in this notification have not yet been enquired into and recorded as laid down in sub-section (3) of section 29 of the said Act but as the State Government thinks that such enquiry and record will occupy such length of time as in the meantime to endanger the right of Government and as the enquiry and record of rights will hereafter be made this notification be heard subject to all existing rights of individuals or communities.” 22. The respondents-authorities, the appellants herein, are claiming proprietary right upon the said land on the ground that the same is "Gair Abad Malik" (Jungle-Jhari) and as such, by reasons of the promulgation of the Act, 1950, the same has been vested to the Government. Admittedly, the land was notified as forest land in the year 1958, however, the case of the petitioner is that before issuance of the said notification, the land was already acquired by his ancestor vide Certificate Case No.191/1933. 23. Further, we have found that the learned Single Judge has discussed the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. 23. Further, we have found that the learned Single Judge has discussed the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. For ready reference, Section 2 of the Act, 1980 is reproduced herein below: “S.2 : Restriction on the de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose -Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing,‘ (i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression “reserved forest” in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved; (ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose; (iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government; (iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof -may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for re-afforestation. Explanation: For the purposes of this section ‘‘non forest purpose” means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for’ (a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oilbearing plants, horticulture crops or medicinal plants; (b) any purpose other than re-afforestation, but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wild-life, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes.” Reference, in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1997) 2 SCC 267 , in particular paragraph 4, which is quoted hereunder as: “4.The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word “forest’’ must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term “forest land”, occurring in Section 2, will not only include “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of this court in Ambica Quarrry Works and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., and recently in the order in Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussorie Dehradun Development Authority and Ors.. The earlier decision of this court in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi and Ors., has, therefore, to be understood in the light of these subsequent decision. We consider it necessary to reiterate this settled position emerging from the decisions of this court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any State Government or authority. This has become necessary also because of the stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this court. It is reasonable to assume that any State Government which has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedial measures without any further delay.” 24. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of provisions as contained in Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the judgment rendered in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad (supra), has come to the conclusive finding that the Section 2 of the Act, 1980 is applicable to the government as well as the private forest land, so as to check/restrict deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance. The term ‘Forest’ will not only mean forest as understood in the dictionary sense but will also include the land recorded as forest in the government record irrespective of its ownership. Therefore, the provision of section 2 of the Act, 1980 or the judgment rendered in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad (supra) cannot be applied by the respondent authorities for cancellation of Jamabandi much less the long running one. 25. We, on appreciation of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and on the basis of discussions made herein above, are of the view that there is no reason to differ with the view/opinion of the learned Single Judge, by coming to the conclusion that the order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the revenue authorities is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law, as they have exercised power conferred under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 which as per the discussions made herein above has been found to be not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as the case of the writ petitioner is that he is claiming title over the land in 1st question on the basis of settlement made prior to January, 1946 and further the additional Collector by way of order passed in Misc. Case No. 56/2015-16 has already passed order on 17.03.2016 holding therein that the present raiyats i.e Izhar Hussain and Akhtar Hussain are the recorded raiyats of Register-II in Thoka (Lot) No. 1665 which is absolutely correct and proper. But without questioning and without reversal of that order, a fresh proceeding was initiated under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 and further long running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled, save and except by instituting a litigation before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with. 26. Accordingly, since the instant appeal lacks merit, is dismissed. I.A. No. 11547 of 2018 & I.A. No. 2230 of 2019 27. In view of the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, both these Interlocutory Application stand disposed of.