The court emphasized the necessity for compelling reasons to condone delays in filing an appeal, rejecting the appellant's claim due to lack of evidence supporting his status as kaiyami raiyat.

JUDGMENT :

(PARTHA SARTHY, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

I.A. no.1 of 2019

2. The instant application has been filed by the appellant praying for condoning the delay of 60 days in filing of the instant appeal.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that CWJC no.101 of 2019 having been dismissed on 15.4.2019, an application for obtaining the certified copy was made on 24.4.2019. On the same having been received on 15.5.2019, the appellant came to Patna on 20.5.2019 but no steps could be taken because of the summer vacation. After opening of the Court, he was advised to file an appeal against the impugned order. He took some time to arrange for money and thereafter finally approached his counsel and the appeal was finally filed. It is submitted that the delay was not intentional but occurred due to compelling circumstances. As such, the same be condoned.

4. The application for condonation of delay is opposed by learned counsel for the respondents who submits that no justifiable reason has been given for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. No explanation has been given as to why the appeal could not be prepared with the web copy and filed in time soon on obtaining the certified copy thereof. The explanation furnished are vague, sketchy and fit to be rejected.

LPA no.813 of 2019

5. The instant appeal has been preferred against the order dated 15.4.2019 whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss CWJC no.7101 of 2019 filed by the writ petitioner-appellant.

6. The writ petitioner filed an application on 11.3.1999 under section 48D of the BIHAR TENANCY ACT (‘B.T. Act’ in short) to declare him as a kaiyami raiyat of the sikmi raiyat i.e. his uncle Ramphal Mandal. The case of the writ petitioner was that on the death of his uncle who died issueless, the writ petitioner and his two brothers inherited the rights and thus filed the said petition for being declared kaiyami raiyat. Objections were invited by the Circle Officer. The respondent nos.5 to 11 appeared and filed their objections wherein, besides other facts, stated that the uncle of the writ petitioner i.e. Ramphal Mandal on 30.7.1960 had executed a registered ladavinama in favour of the landlord. By order dated 27.2.1997, the Circle Officer rejected the petition of the writ petitioner against which he filed Review Appeal no.4 of 2009. The said appeal was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhamdaha (Purnea) by order dated 25.11.2017. The writ petitioner preferred B.L.T. Case no.204 of 2018 in the Bihar Land Tribunal which came to be rejected by the Tribunal on 24.10.2018. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the writ petitioner by filing CWJC no.7101 of 2019 which was dismissed by order dated 15.4.2019, against which the instant appeal has been preferred.

7. It was submitted by learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant that the learned Single Judge as also the Tribunal had committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the appellant. It was submitted that once the bataidari case had been initiated, it was the statutory obligation of the authority to refer the dispute to a duly constituted Board for promoting settlement between the parties and not having done so, this order is not sustainable and fit to be set aside. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Dhanji Singh vs. The State of Bihar (1979 PLJR 247), Dilip Goswami vs. The State of Bihar [ 2003 (2) PLJR 211 ] and Smt. Poonam Kumari vs. The State of Bihar [ 2005 (2) PLJR 367 ].

8. The appl