(1.) All these eleven writ applications have been heard together as in all of them common questions of facts and law are involved.
(2.) The petitioner in all these applications is the same person, a landlord against whom on the applications of different Bataidars, who are respondent No. 5 in each of the writ applications, proceedings under Section 48-E of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were started by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Madhubani. It appears from the order of the Bataidari Magistrate, Madhubani, respondent No. 3 in all the applications, who seems to have subsequently taken over the matter, that the petitioner had nominated Shri Ram Kripal Sahu, Advocate, as his panch on the Board, but, he absented himself in the Board on 13-4-1974, 30-4-1974 and 24-5-1974 consecutively. Thereupon the Chairman of the Board recommended for the appointment of the sarpanch Girwar Yadav, to represent the landlord, under his letter dated 28-6-1974 to the Deputy Collector but before any approval was accorded by the Deputy Collector as required under Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 48-E of the Act, the Chairman started the deliberations with the said sarpanch putting him as a member on the Board and by his order dated 19-7-1974 finally decided the proceeding in favour of the Bataidars.
(3.) Before the Bataidari Magistrate an objection was taken on behalf of the petitioner to the above illegality committed by the Chairman of the Board and on this account the findings and report of the Board were challenged to be illegal. The learned Bataidari Magistrate, however, overruled this objec- tion on the plea that in view of the majority decision of the Board, even if the views of the sarpanch were not taken into account, it was supported by two of the members, and he accordingly, accepted the recommendation of the Board and disposed of the proceedings in terms of his findings in favour of the Bataidars. The landlord has accordingly come to the court.