BEUNI YADAV Vs. LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR MADHUBANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is on behalf of under-raiyats and is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Madhubani (Respondent no. V), dated 27th July, 1979, contained in Annexure '1'. By this order the Deputy Collector has held that the petitioners had failed to make out a prima facie case with respect to their rights calling for any investigation.

(2.) It appears from the order, and which is not controverted, that all the petitioners on an earlier occasion had filed bataidari cases in the year 1973-74 against the same landlord. The dispute was referred to the Bataidari Board and their claim was found to be false. The order of the Deputy Collector was also confirme on appeal. An attempt was made also in this Court to challenged the said order by filing a writ application (C.W.J.C. No. 1680 of 1977), but, as I am informed, the said application was dismissed for non-compliance of some per-emptory order. The learned Deputy Collector has also observed in his order that they had also lost a criminal case under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the year 1974 and in the Sessions Trial also the claim of one of the petitioners, namely, Ramdeo Yadav,over plot no. 6683 was not found established in the sessions case, being Sessions Trial No. 97/77-78 by the Sessions Judge, Madhubani. He has also referred to the fact that the bataidars also failed to establish their claim over the lands in dispute before the survey authorities.

(3.) The above order is challenged by the petitioners on the following facts and circumstances : On the filing of the cases by the petitioners, the Deputy Collector by an earlier order dated 3rd May, 1979 had issued a notice of the proceeding to the landlord asking him to nominate his Panch and accordingly after receipt of the notice the landlord appeared in the proceeding and filed a petition for dropping the same on the ground that it was mala fide. On these facts and circumstances he has come to the conclusion, as already said earlier, that the claim was not genuine.