VIDYANAND BISWAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel no. 12 appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2 as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 to 7. However, despite valid service of notice, respondent no. 8 to 10 have chosen not to appear and contest the matter.

(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 17.6.2004 (Annexure-4) passed in Batai Case No. 40 of 2003-04 by the respondent DCLR, Baisi (District Purnea), whereby batai claims raised on behalf of the petitioners with respect to 81 decimals of land appertaining to plot no. 579 and 578 has been rejected at the very threshold in terms of Section 48E(1) of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (in short Act), without referring the matter to the Batai Board constituted under the provisions of Section 48E(3) of the Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent DCLR, Baisi, after holding a mini/parallel trial, has rejected the batai claims of the petitioners with respect to the lands under dispute by recording a long judgment running into 22 pages. It is contended that one Mahesh Lal Biswas, grandfather of the petitioners, was recorded as Sikmidar with respect to the lands under dispute, and the petitioners, besides others, have been coming in possession over the lands under dispute for a quite long time. However, on threat of ejectment from the landlords-respondent no. 3 to 7, they filed an application under Section 48E of the Act seeking protection from unlawful ejectment from the lands under dispute, which gave rise to Batai Case No. 40 of 2003-04 before the respondent DCLR, Baisi, the Collector under the Act. It is pointed out that after registering the case, notices were issued to the landlords by order dated 27.1.2004 and the matter was adjourned and heard on different dates. After hearing the parties at great length and on consideration of all the materials and evidence produced by the parties, batai claims raised on behalf of the petitioners with respect to the lands under dispute was arbitrarily rejected by the impugned order dated 17.6.2004 (Annexure-4) by holding a parallel trial/mini enquiry.