KRISHNA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is the landholder and has challenged the orders dated 30.9.2005 and 4.4.1998 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Naugachia as contained in Annexures-2 and 5 as well as the order dated 18.8.2003 passed by the Collector, Bhagalpur (Annexure-6).

(2.) With respect to the lands in dispute, a proceeding under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was initiated in the year 1975 by a third party for getting himself declared as a bataidar of the Petitioner against the vendor of the Petitioner, which was dismissed. The name of the vendor of the Petitioner was entered in the revisional survey published in the year 1982. The Petitioner came into the picture when he purchased the land in the year 1990. The present application under Section 48E of the Act was filed on 20.3.1992 giving rise to Bataidari Case No. 26 of 1991-92. The Petitioner filed Title Suit No. 51 of 1992 against Respondent No. 5, claiming that Respondent No. 5 should be stopped from entering and disturbing the peaceful possession of the Petitioner on his land. The injunction petition was allowed on 2.5.1992 and made absolute on 23.9.1993. Respondent No. 5 did not file any appeal or revision against the orders restraining him from entering upon the lands in question. The Bataidari Case No. 26 of 1991-92 filed by Respondent No. 5 was dismissed in limine on 30.9.1992. Respondent No. 5 then filed writ application which was allowed with a direction to the Collector to constitute a Board. Accordingly, one Shiv Kumar Awam was made the Chairman of the Board. This was challenged by Respondent No. 5 by filing a writ application which was allowed and ultimately the Circle Officer, Naugachia was appointed as the Chairman of the Board. Thereafter, the Petitioner moved this Court by filing CWJC No. 8789 of 1995 challenging the appointment of the Circle Officer as the Chairman of the Board which was ultimately dismissed. Eventually, the Board was constituted and the matter proceeded.

(3.) The limited question which has been raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that whether in the absence of the Panches, the Board could have proceeded in the matter without following the provisions of Sub-Section 5 of Section 48E of the Act.