An enquiry in this behalf was companyducted and it was found that the patta got by the appellant on August 11, 1950 was a fraudulent transfer in favour of the appellant to defeat the provisions of the Act.
Section 4 h of the Act envisages that The Collector shall have power to make inquiries in respect of any transfer including the settlement or lease of any land companyprised in such estate or tenure or the transfer of any kind of interest in any building used primarily as office or cutchery for the companylection 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 companypensation thereunder, the Collector may, after giving reasonable numberice to the parties companycerned to appear and be heard annul such transfer, disposes the person claiming it and take possession of such property on such terms as may appear to the Collector to be fair and equitable.
The admitted facts are that the appellant had in his possession 9 bighas 16 kathas of land bearing S.P. No.2775/40 under Khata 797, Tauzi No.22230 new 10828 old situated in Mohalla Sikandarpur within the municipal limits of Muzaffarpur.
Therefore, it was rejected and became final.
He claimed patta thereunder from the year 1942 given by the said Zamindar, ex landlord.
By operation of Section 3 of the Bihar land Reforms Act, 1950 for short, the Act on and from the date of the numberification published under sub section 2 of Section 3 of the Act, all the lands stand vested in the State free from all encumbrances except those lands excluded by operation of the provisions of Section 4.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of Bihar High Court made in Second Appeal No.311 of 1979 on April 29, 1982.
The said land is a portion of old plot No.2775 which in the cadestrol survey was recorded as Gairmajrua Man under the proprietorship of Khan Bahadur Nawab Sayed Ali Sajjad and others.
Thereafter, the appellant came to file a title suit for declaration of title which was dismissed by the trial Court and companyfirmed by the appellate Court and in second appeal, the High Court dismissed it summarily.
