due enquiry, revenue official found that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land. He, further, submitted that admittedly, the suit land was recorded as Gairmajarua “Partikadim” in cadastral survey of khatiyan and, therefore, the aforesaid fact goes to show that ex-landlords were not in possession of the suit land at the time of vesting of the suit land and, therefore, it is obvious that after coming into force of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, suit land vested in the State of Bihar and, therefore, ex-landlords had no right to transfer the suit land by executing sale deed. He, further, submitted that so far as so-called Hukumnama (exhibit 4) is concerned, the same is forged and fabricated document and moreover, District Magistrate has every right to enquire into the transfer made after 01st July, 1946 and admittedly, in the present case, the plaintiffs claimed to purchase portion of the suit land after 01st July, 1946 and, therefore, proceeding under section 4(H) of the Act was rightly initiated by the revenue officials. He, further, submitted that so far as opening of jamabandi and fixation of rent are concerned, the plaintiffs got jamabandi opened by taking the government officials in collusion and, therefore, revenue officials have every right to cancel jamabandi which had not
