Back
2006 Supreme(Pat) 437
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.K.Katriar, J.
Sheonath Sah
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction No. 12947 of 2000 ;
Decided On : MAY 08, 2006
Headnote:Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885-Section 48E(3)-Bataidari rights-A bataidars application under Section 48E of the Act must satisfy three conditions mentioned in Section 48E of the Act-He must further satisfy that it is a bonafide application is not a vexatious and repetitive application and is not an attempt of land grabbing-Determination of these aspects of the matter in a quasi judicial proceeding needs judicial application of the mind-In case the fresh authority comes to the conclusion that it does not qualify to be referred to the Board in terms of Section 48E, then he is not bound in law to initiate a proceeding and refer it to the Board-In case he comes to the conclusion that the application does qualify, he is then bound in law to initiate a proceeding and refer to the Board for a settlement between the bataidar and the landlord and report-After reference has been made, he must wait for the report of the Board-Law provides for situations where the Board refuses to submit its report-Both the authorities have concurrently found that the petitioners are not bonafide applicants and the landlord are a large family none of whom owns more than 10 Kathas of land hence refused to initiate the proceeding and refer the dispute to the Board in terms of Section 48E(3). (Paras 7 to 10)
Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885-Section 48(C)-Bataidari rights-If a landlord owns land less than the area indicated in Section 48(C) of the Act, then the application for bataidari rights not maintainable. (Para 10)
Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885-Section 48E-Bataidari rights-Finding recorded by authorities that some of the bataidars are less than 30 years of age and claim to have been in possession and tilling the lands for more than 20 years, which means that they became bataidars when they were less than 10 years of age and has been taken to be a circumstance against the bataidars-Authorities have therefore concluded that the petitioners have raised false, fabricated and baseless claims-Writ dismissed. (Para 11)
AIR 1979 Pat 169, 1979 PLJR 247 (FB), 1999 (2) PLJR 167, 1992 (2) PLJR 747, AIR 1992 Pat 38, 2000 (3) PLJR 79, 1995 BBCJ 39, (1997) 2 BLJ 293, 1993 (2) PLJR 211-Referred to.
S.K.Katriar, J.
1. This writ application arises out of a proceeding u/s. 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act 1885 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The four petitioners have joined this writ petition seeking to challenge the appellate order dated 21.11.2000 (Annexure 2), passed by the learned Additional Collector, East Champaran, in Bataidari Appeal No. 3/98-99 Anutha Sahni V/s. Anadi Nath Dev, whereby he has dismissed the appeal preferred by the bataidar (the present petitioners) in purported exercise of the appellate power conferred on him under Sec. 48F of the Act. The learned appellate authority upheld the order dated 16.11.1998 (Annexure 1), passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Raxaul, in Bataidari Case No. 486/98 and 484/98, whereby the application of the present petitioners u/s. 48E(i) of the Act for declaration of their bataidari rights with respect to the land In question and for protection of unlawful ejectment from their tenancy, was rejected.
2. According to the writ petition, Petitioner No. 1 (Sheonath Sah) filed Batadari Case No. 486/98 with respect to land bearing plot No. 487, covering an area of 2 katha 16 dhurs, khata No. 72; pilot No. 489, covering an area of 7 kathas 5 dhurs, khata No. 72, plot No. 485, covering an area of 1 katha 1 dhur, and plot No. 541 covering an area of 3 katha, 1 dhurs and in all a total area of land covering 19 kathas and 3 dhurs. Petitioner No. 2 (Motilal Sah) filed Bataidari Case No. 484/98 with respect to plot No. 474, covering an area of 3 katha 4 dhurs, khata No. 72 and plot No. 482, covering an area of 3 katha 14 dhurs and plot No. 483, covering an area of 2 katha 6 dhurs, and Khata No. 15, plot No. 377 covering an area of 9 katha 8dhur, plot No. 379 covering an area of 5 katha, the total being 1 bigha, 3 katha 12 dhurs. All the lands are situate in village Lakshmipur, PS Adapur, District East Champaran. Both the applications along with similar applications were rejected by order dated 16.11.98 (Annexure 1), passed by learned LRDC, Raxaul. The present petitioners preferred statutory appeal in terms of sec. 48F of the Act which has been rejected by the impugned order.
3. While assailing the validity of the impugned action, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the two authorities have passed the impugned orders without complying with the mandatory provisions of sec. 48E(iii) of the Act, whereby it is incumbent upon the learned first authority to refer the matter to the Board. He relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1979 PLJR 82 : 1979 Patna 169 Lakshmi Prasad V/s. State of Bihar. He further submits that rejection of an earlier bataidari application u/s. 48E of the Act is no bar to the filing of a fresh bataidari application. He relies on a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1979 PLJR 247 Dhanji Singh V/s. State of Bihar.
4. Learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned action. He submits that the learned first authority is entitled to determine a prima facie case for reference to the Board in terms of sec. 48E(iii) of the Act for promoting the settlement of disputes between the landlord and under-raiyat. He relies on the judgment reported in 1999 (2) PLJR 167 Parmanand Oraon V/s. State of Bihar.
5. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 (the landlord, has supported the impugned action. He submits that the learned first authority is entitled to determine the question whether or not the bataidars have made out a prima facie case and/or have filed a bondfide application to initiate kthe proceeding and refer it to the Board. If yes, a proceeding can be initiated for reference to the Board to bring about an amicable settlement and repdort He relies on the following reported judgments:
(a) 1979 PLJR 247 (FB) Dhanji Singh V/s. State of Bihar
(b) 1992 (2) PLJR 747 (DB) Brijendra Kr. Narain Singh V/s. State of Bihar
(c) - Lakshmi Pd. Bhagat V/s. State of Bihar
(d) - Shankar Mandal V/s. DCLR
(e) 2000 (3) PLJR 7
