NARESH PRASAD BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of seven writ petitions the issues of facts and the issues of law involved are common and identical. Therefore, with the consent of the parties, all these matters have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners of all the seven cases, who are same and common persons, claim to be landholders with respect to the land under dispute. The private respondents, who are separate and distinct persons in all the seven writ petitions, filed their separate applications under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (in short "the B.T. Act") before the respondent D.C.L.R., Araria, giving rise to Batai Case No. 601 of 1986-87, 599 of 1986-87, 430 of 1986-87, 431 of 1986-87, 591 of 1986-87, 432 of 1986-87 & 429 of 1986-87, respectively. For settlement of batai dispute between the parties separate Batai Boards were constituted. Since endeavour for amicable settlement between the parties could not be arrived at in terms of Section 48E (6) of the B. T. Act, the Batai Board returned the record to the respondent D. C. L. R. Araria. Whereafter, the respondent D. C. L.R., Araria himself appears to have examined the witnesses and passed final order dated 28.12. 1989 (Annexure-3) separately with respect to each of the batai cases, allowing the batai claims raised on behalf of the private respondents with respect to the lands under dispute.

(3.) The petitioners, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 28.12.1989 (Annexure-3) passed separately in each of the batai cases, preferred separate batai appeals before the District Collector, Araria, giving rise to Rev. Appeals No. 5 of 1992-93, 7 of 1992-93, 4 of 1992-93, 2 of 1992-93, 6 of 1992-93, 8 of 1992-93 and 3 of 1992- 93, respectively, under Section 48F of the B. T. Act. However, respondent District Collector, Araria has dismissed all the aforesaid seven batai appeals filed on behalf of the petitioners by the impugned order dated 02.06.1992 (Annexure-6) passed separately in aforesaid 7 batai appeals on the ground of limitation only and has refused to examine the matter on merits.