Genuine raiyati settlement controls rights in bakasht land after vesting, with sham transaction claim rejected.

After the amendment to the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the State could hold a Mela on the proprietor's bakasht lands, but not where a person had acquired a genuine raiyati right before vesting. The decisive question was whether the 1944 settlement in favour of the respondent was a real and bona fide raiyati settlement or a sham transaction. Applying the principle that the apparent state of affairs should be accepted as real unless the contrary is shown, the materials did not justify treating the settlement as unreal on the record before the Court. The respondent was therefore treated as having genuinely become a raiyat before vesting, and the High Court's writ was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent could retain the right to hold a Mela on the lands after vesting, and whether the alleged settlement in her favour was a genuine raiyati settlement or only a sham transaction.

Analysis: The legal position after the amendment to the Bihar Land Reforms Act was that the State could hold a Mela on the proprietor's bakasht lands, but not where the respondent had acquired a real and bona fide raiyati right before vesting. The decisive question was therefore the character of the 1944 settlement. Applying the principle that the apparent state of affairs should be accepted as real unless the contrary is shown, the materials did not justify treating the settlement as unreal for the present proceedings.

Conclusion: The respondent was to be treated as having genuinely become a raiyat under her husband before vesting, and the writ issued by the High Court was upheld.

---