IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.87 of 1992 1. Rajendra Rai 2. Yogendra Rai 3. Bachan Rai 4. Sitab Rai - All sons of late Tej Narain Rai 5. Smt. Inner Devi w/o Brahmdeo Rai 6. Smt. Kunti Devi w/o Innerdeo Rai …… Petitioners-Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division of Muzaffarpur 3. The Collector, Vaishali, Muzaffarpur 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms at Hajipur 5. The Anchal Adhikari, Mahnar, PS Mahnar, District Vaishali ….(Respondents)-Respondents ----------- 10- 26.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to AAG VI for the respondents. This appeal under clause-10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, has been preferred by the heirs and legal representatives of the petitioner of CWJC No.2757 of 1983 (Tej Narain Rai vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), which was dismissed by learned single Judge of this Court by his judgment dated 11.8.1992. It relates to a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’), whereby the alleged settlement made in favour of the writ petitioner was annulled. 2. It appears that a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act was initiated in the year 1969-70 for annulling the settlement in favour of the petitioner by the ex-landlord under registered Patta dated 14.2.1950. According to the State of Bihar, the settlement was made after 1st January 1946 and with the object of defeating the provisions of the Act. The matter was considered by the original authority who - 2 - held that the petitioner’s case was based on forged and fabricated documents. These findings were affirmed by the learned appellate authority and the learned revisional authority. The learned writ court went into the depth of the matter and on consideration of the materials on record observed that the petitioner can succeed in this case only if it is proved that an oral settlement was made in favour of the petitioner in the year 1944. He further noticed that the learned original authority had, on consideration of the entire materials before him, disbelieved the petitioner’s case of oral settlement alleged to have taken place in 1944, a finding of fact affirmed by the learned appellate authority as well as revisional authority, and also affirmed by the learned writ court. It thus appears to us that the issues are concluded by findings of facts. It is not possible for this Court to reopen the issues of facts that has been consistently upheld by all the learned authorities as well as the learned writ court. Indeed the petitioner’s case has been based on false and fabricated documents. 3. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Shyam Kishore Sharma ) mrl