JUDGMENT :

In all the above writ applications, the petitioners have sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing entire orders passed subsequent to order dated 07.01.1999 at Annexure-3 in different Bataidari cases.

2. A brief fact of this case is that father of the petitioners, namely, Late Ishwari Prasad Jhunjhunwala was admitted “Proprietor” as defined in Section 3(2) of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885. He was owner with possession in respect of lands in Mauja-Rampur Tola, Ammaghaud, P.S.-Shikarpur, District-West Champaran fully detailed in para-4 of the writ petitions. The private respondent No.4, in different writ petitions referred above, brought separate Bataidari cases under Section 48-D of the Bihar Tenancy Act, claiming to be Sikmidar (Bataidar) in respect of different plots or its portions which are detailed in para-4 of the writ applications. Respondent No.4 of CWJC No.6485 of 2000 had filed Bataidari Case No.89 of 1998-99, respondent No.4 of CWJC No.6486 of 2000 had filed Bataidari Case No.85 of 1998-99, respondent No.4 of CWJC No.6490 of 2000 had filed Bataidari Case No.90 of 1998-99, respondent No.4 of CWJC No.6492 of 2000 had filed Bataidari Case No.80 of 1998-99, respondent No.4 of CWJC No.6493 of 2000 had filed Bataidari Case No.83 of 1998-99, respondent No.4 of CWJC No.6503 of 2000 had filed Bataidari Case No.87 of 1998-99, respondent No.4 of CWJC No.6511 of 2000 had filed Bataidari Case No.84 of 1998-99, respondent No.4 of CWJC No.6512 of 2000 had filed Bataidari Case No.82 of 1998-99, respondent No.4 of CWJC No.6534 of 2000 had filed Bataidari Case No.86 of 1998-99.

Besides the aforesaid, one Seikh Imam Hassan had filed Bataidari Case No.81 of 1998-99, Seikh Saiful Hasan had filed Bataidari Case No.88 of 1998-99, Seikh Anwar had filed Bataidari Case No.91 of 1998-99, Seikh Arman had filed Bataidari Case No.92 of 1998-99 and Seikh Wasi Ahmad had filed Bataidari Case No.93 of 1998-99. Total 14 Bataidari cases were filed claiming Bataidari right on the property of the petitioners mentioned in para-4 of the writ applications. All the Bataidari cases were heard by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Narkatiaganj, “Collector” under Section 3(16) of the Bihar Tenancy Act and the Collector passed operative order in Bataidari Case No.88 of 1998-99 Saiful Hasan Vs. Ishwhari Prasad Jhunjhunwala whereby all the Bataidari cases were dismissed. A copy of the order is at Annexure-2. It would be relevant to reproduce English translation of the said order.

“07.01.1999:-

Attendance has been filed by the petitioner. Attendance has been filed through lawyer by the opposite party. Heard learned counsels for both the parties. Applicant-Saiful Hasan, son of Seikh Noor Hasan of village Rampur Tola Ammaghaud, P.S.-Shikarpur and other 13 persons, in their applications, have claimed that they are Bataidars on the land of Ishwari Prasad Jhunjhunwala. The land owner wants to dispossess them from their respective land. Hence, the applicants claimed for protection from their dispossession. The opposite parties were noticed to file show cause and they have filed show cause. (I) The defence of opposite party is that applicants have wrongly placed claim of Bataidari. The land on which they claim to be Bataidar are under cultivating possession of the opposite party through their own labour. (II) The defence of opposite party is that the applicants have no evidence of sharing of crop or ploughing the field. On the same property, Md. Ayub and Abdul Qaum also claim to be Bataidars vide Bataidari Case No.98 of 1998-99 and 99 of 1998-99. Further defence of opposite party is that the land on which the applicants claim to be Bataidar were subject matter of Bataidari cases bearing No.1370 of 1975-76, and 1379 of 1975-76 but the court dismissed the wrong claim of the Bataidars at that time. In the year 1997-98 also, a Bataidari case was instituted but was dismissed by the court.

Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the docum