KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH SON OF SRI ACHAK LAL MANDAL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. BHANGHA P.S. FALKA, KATIHAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COLLECTOR, KATIHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER claims himself to be Bataidar/under tenant in respect of 1.46 acres of land appertaining to RS. Khata No. 5, RS. Plot No. 194 situate in mauza Turki within Falka police station in the district of Katihar. He raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 13.6.1989 passed by the Respondent -Deputy Collector, Land Reforms in Case No. 65/88 -89 (Annexure -3) whereby the application (Annexure -2) filed by him seeking protection against ejectment therefrom under section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act (for short 'the Act') was considered and rejected at its threshold without proceeding further in the matter by constituting a board and referring the same for adjudication in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed a revision being Case No. 439/89 -90 before the Respondent -Collector which was considered and rejected by order dated 31.3.1992 (Annexure -4). The said order has also been impugned in the present writ application. According to the writ petition, the petitioner was Bataidar of respondent nos. 3 and 4 in respect of subject land. The respondent/land holder(s) fell in need of money and, as such, the subject land was mortgaged with him and after redemption thereof the petitioner continued as Bataidar of the subject land. He was subsequently threatened by the respondent -landholder(s) with forcible ejectment therefrom leading to filing of the said application (Annexure -2) which was considered and rejected at its threshold by the Respondent -Collector.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Jaipuriar for the petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of the State as well as respondent no. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed by any of the respondent(s).

(3.) I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and perused the materials on record. On perusal of the order dated 13.6.1989 (Annexure -3) it appears that authority under the Act before admitting the application directed issuance of notice on the landholder who appeared and presented diverse documents and took the plea that they hold less than 05 acres of land and, as such, they were insulated against any such action under section 48E of the Act. The Collector under the Act accepting those submissions of the landholder(s) and taking into consideration the provisions contained in section 48C of the Act rejected the application.