RAM ASHRAY YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties. These five writ petitions relate to lands of the same family of the land -holders -respondents and questions for determination in all cases are same. In that view of the matter, with the consent of the parties, all these five writ petitions have been heard together at the stage of admission and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) PETITIONERS claim to be under raiyats (Bataidars) for various lands belonging to the private respondents. In July, 1992 they filed petitions under section 48 -E of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the concerned Subdivisional Officer, Collector under the Act. Earlier a dispute arose whether the Subdivisional Officer was justified in initiating the proceeding or not. After that dispute was settled by an order of this Court in a batch of writ applications disposed of in March, 1993, the proceeding under section 48 -E (3) of the Act progressed but attempt for amicable settlement of dispute at the instance of the Board constituted under section 48 -E (3) of the Act failed. The Board thereafter made an enquiry into the dispute and submitted report through Circle Officer, its Chairman for rejecting petitioners claims. One Satya Narain Singh, panch of petitioners filed a dissenting note. The Collector under the Act did not accept the reports for passing final orders and chose to proceed to hold an enquiry under sub -section (8) of Section 48 -E of the Act. As a result of the enquiry he came to a finding that the claim of the petitioners was not acceptable and hence by his order dated 13.7.95 rejected the claims in all the 53 cases. The appeals were also dismissed by Collector, Jehanabad vide order dated 5.11.1999. The originial order and the appellate order which are impugned in these writ petitions have been annexed as annexure 8 and 9 respectively in C.W.J.C. No. 436 of 2000.

(3.) ON behalf of petitioners mainly four points were raised to challenge the impugned orders contained in annexures 8 and 9 as noticed above and it was prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the matter be remitted back for fresh decision. The four points are : (1) Once Collector under the Act dis -agreed with recommendation made by the Board then as per sub -section (8) of Section 48 -E of the Act he had to make enquiry all by himself and could not have asked for and considered a report from a sub -ordinate Executive Magistrate; (2) After rejecting the recommendations of the Board, at the time of passing of final order the Collector under the Act could not have looked into such report of the Board; (3) In an enquiry under subsection (8) of Section 48 -E of the Act, the Collector can pass only three kinds of orders as enumerated in that sub -section and there is no scope for passing a final order rejecting the claim of under raiyats and (4) the Appellate authority erred in law in referring to provisions of section 48 -C of the Act and taking help of the same in rejecting the claims under section 48 -E of the Act.