PRADEEP YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners are the sons of Late Baijnath Yadav who had purchased the lands in dispute from one Satya Narain Chaudhary, Respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 had filed a title suit against the Shikmidar, Respondent No. 5 for payment of rent. It is the case of the Petitioners that an auction sale took place in which the original owner i.e. Respondent No. 4 purchased the said land. The Petitioners has filed the documents related to the proceeding of the auction sale, such as, the order of handing over possession to Respondent No. 4, the report of the Nazir who had reported that the possession was handed over to Respondent No. 4 which has been marked as Exts. 'A' to 'E/1', in order to show that Respondent No. 4 came in possession over the land after the decree in the title suit. The Petitioners' father purchased the said land from Respondent No. 5 by a sale deed, dated 15.4.1981 and accordingly was put in possession of the said land.

(2.) The dispute arose when Respondent No. 5, the Shikmidar filed a claim under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming that he was the Bataidar of Respondent No. 4 since 1977, as such he had the right to remain in possession of the Jand and cultivate the lands in dispute. The matter was referred to the Conciliation Board. The Circle Officer was appointed as the Chairman of the Board. However, the Circle Officer did not come to any conclusion with respect to whether Respondent No. 5 was a Bataidar and the matter came to be heard by the Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Purnea who allowed the case of Respondent No. 5 by his order, dated 7.7.1990 (Annexure-2) which was challenged by the Petitioners before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector dismissed the appeal of the Petitioners by order dated 3.1.1991 (Annexure-3).

(3.) The Petitioners have raised two issues in this case. The first point raised on behalf of the Petitioners is that the Executive Magistrate ought to have followed the provisions of Sub-section (10) of Section 48E of the Act, when the matter was returned to him by the Chairman of the Board. The second point raised on behalf of the Petitioners is that once the Petitioners had claimed that they were small landholders, and were entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of Section 48C of the Act, the authorities concerned i.e. Executive Magistrate ought to have held an enquiry regarding this aspect.