UDAY RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner, counsel for respondents 3 to 5 and J.C. to G.P. 2 for the State.

(2.) BY this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 20th October, 1995 as contained in Annexure 2 passed by the Collector respondent no.2 under the provisions of Bihar Tenancy Act, rejecting the claim of the petitioner under section 48 E of the Act.

(3.) IT appears that the petitioner claimed bataidari right under respondents 3 to 5 with regard to different pieces of land of different khata numbers as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ application and at the same time it also appears that altogether 12 applications under section 48 -E of the Act were filed on the same day against the/petitioners for detemination of their right as Bataidars over different pieces of fend. From the order impugned it appears that the petitioners had not disclosed the cause of action nor they had disclosed a prima facie case showing that they were bataidars under respondents 3 to 5, rather it appears that the petitioner and other claimants had tried to grab the land of the landholders and for that a proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated and the claimants were prevented from taking possession of the land in question. The Collector under the Act as it appears from the impugned order was not satisfied from the claim of the claimants that in fact they were bataidars under the land holders rather the Collector was satisfied that attempt was made by the claimants to grab the land in question.