BALDEO BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THE petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 30.5.1987 (Annexure-1) passed in Case No. 272 of 1982-83 by the respondent D.C.L.R., Sadar, Purnea, as also the appellate order dated 24.8.1990 (Annexure-2) passed in Revenue Revision No. 43 of 1987- 88 (wrongly described as revision, in fact it should have been appeal) by the respondent District Collector, Purnea, have preferred the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the impugned original order at Annexure-1 as also the impugned appellate order at Annexure-2.

(3.) IT appears that despite constitution of the Bataidari Board by the respondent D.C.L.R., Sadar, Purnea and despite reference of the matter to such Bataidari Board, no report was submitted by the said Bataidari Board, and it failed to record its finding within a period of six months, as a result thereof, the respondent D.C.L.R., Sadar, Purnea, being the Collector under the B. T. Act, in exercise of his powers under Section 48E (10) of the B. T. Act decided to withdraw the aforesaid proceeding from the Bataidari Board and proceeded to decide the matter himself. Parties are said to have led evidence in support of their respective claims over the lands in question and finally by the impugned order dated 30.5.1987 (Annexure-1), claimant, Sk. Sakoor, was declared as bataidar over the lands in question. Petitioners, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the respondent D.C.L.R., Sadar, Purnea, approached the respondent District Collector, Purnea purportedly under Section 48F of the B,.T. Act, but their appeal was rejected by the impugned appellate order dated 24.8.1990 (Annexure-2). Hence, the present writ petition.