The Collector has jurisdiction to reject a claim under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act if no prima facie case is made out by the claimant.

The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the orders dated 22.11.97 and 19.8.98 passed by respondents Additional Collector, Purnia, as well as the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Dhamdaha respectively, whereby prayer for declaring the petitioner as Bataidar with respect to the land pertaining to plot no. 2150 of khata 1721 measuring an area of 3.25 acres situated in village Mogalia, Purandaha in the district of Purnia, copies of the said orders are made Annexures 1 and 2 respectively to this writ application.

2. Shortly stated the case of the petitioner is that an application under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), has been filed by the petitioner claiming himself as under-raiyat with respect to the land, in dispute, which was registered as case no. 244/94. According to the petitioner, father of respondent no. 7, namely, Bishwanath Lal Das, orally gave the land and he is in cultivating possession over the same since the time of R.S. operation. It is further alleged that in spite of having in possession of the land being a raiyat, the respondent is bent upon to dispose of the said land by seiling to some other person. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation a case was instituted before the respondent Deputy Collector. Land Reforms, as stated above. Pursuant to the notice issued to respondents 4 to 7 they appeared and filed objection stating, inter alia, that the claim of the petitioner is wholly misconceived and concocted in order to grab their land, they have denied that the petitioner and/or his father ever came in possession over the land, in question. The petitioner had tried to forcibly occupy the land for which a proceeding under section 144 Cr. P. C. was initiated before the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhamdaha in which the petitioner was restrained from going over the land, in question. It is further alleged that the petitioner and others being land grabber have forcibly constructed thatched houses on 1.58 acres of land, for which a separate proceeding under section 145 Cr. P.C. was initiated, in which the land was attached in terms of section 146(1) Cr. P.C. It is further alleged that with respect to the same land earlier a proceeding under section 48E of the Act was initiated against the respondents by several other claimants which was registered as case no. 3/92-93 and 4/92-93 and their claim of bataidari has been rejected by the respondent authority. A similar claim was raised by one Khem Lal Oraon on the ground that his father was cultivating the land as bataidar in the year 1977 and, after his death, the said Khem Lal Oraon was in cultivating possession of the land, in dispute, and, accordingly, he filed a petition under section 48E of the Act for declaring him as bataidar with respect to the land. Ultimately his claim was rejected in the year 1977 itself. Again a successive petition in terms of Section 48E of the Act was filed by the petitioner and others which was registered as case no. 245/94 and 246/94. The respondent D.C.L.R. on the pleadings of the parties and taking into consideration all the relevant materials on record has rejected the claim of the petitioner. The respondent D.C.L.R. has recorded a finding that the person claiming bataidari interest in the year 1997 was not even aware of the name of the land-holder. He has further recorded that the possession over the land as claimed by the petitioner has been negatived in the year 1992 itself in a proceeding initiated under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent D.C.L.R. has also recorded a finding that the claimant petitioner has not produced any iota of evidence in order to establish his claim as bataidar and/or having possession over the land, in question. The respondent D.C.L.R. has also observed to the effect that a similar proceeding was initiated in the year 1977 by one Ram Khelwan Oraon with respect to the same land which is in dispute in this proceeding.