KAILASHPRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition arises out of an order marked Annexure-6 by which the Deputy Collector, Incharge Land Reforms, Biharsharif (D. C. L. R.) exercising the powers of the Collector has rejected the application of the petitioner for initiation of proceeding under Section 48-E of the Bihar Tenancy Act ('the Act' in short) and restraint order against respondent No. 3, Gokhulpur Trust Committee. The relevant facts are as follows

(2.) The petitioner claiming under-tenancy rights, in common parlance Bataidari rights, with respect to O.40 acre of plot No. 869 and O.63 acre of plot No. 875 situate in Village Gokhulpur within Harnaut Anchal of Nalanda district filed the petition on 30-6-1990 stating that he apprehended dispossession by the landlord, respondent No. 3. The petition was registered as Case No. 85 of 1990-91. On 3-8-1990 the D. C. L. R. passed an interim restraint order and issued notice. Respondent No 3 appeared on 10-10-1990. He, however, filed his show cause only a year after on 30-10-1991. In the meantime, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had filed separate petitions on 15-12-1990 and 14-1-1991 claiming under-tenancy rights with respect to plot Nos 875 and 869, respectively giving rise to Case Nos. 94 and 95 of 1991. Respondent No. 3 filed show cause accepting the claim of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in Case Nos. 94 and 95 of 1991. The petitioner, who had in the meantime nominated his Panch on 30-8-1991 filed petition stating the mala fides of respondent No. 3 on 7-3-1992. The D. C. L. R. by impugned order dated 28-4-1992 allowed the claim of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 with respect to the lands in question and, thus, rejected the claim of the petitioner observing that no land was available with respect to which his claim could be considered. The order has been passed in Case No. 94 of 1991 but made applicable to Case Nos. 85 and 95 of 1991 as well.

(3.) Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the D. C. L. R. having taken cognizance of the dispute, issued notice and also passed interim restraint order, was obliged to refer the dispute to the Board for settlement of the dispute. It was pointed out that at the stage of the initiation of the proceeding the Collector has only to prima facie see the existence of dispute and he is not supposed to hold a full-fledged enquiry, take evidence and decide the dispute himself. Reliance was placed on Dhanji Singh v. State of Bihar & others, (AIR 1979 Patna, 259) Mr. Sidheshwar Prasad Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, submitted that the Collector is entitled to see that the dispute sought to be raised is bona fide. It was pointed out that denial of jurisdiction to hold enquiry at the preliminary stage would result in false frivolous claim at the instance of unscrupulous persons in order to harass the landlord. Reliance was placed on Sukhdeo Paswan & ors. v. The State of Bihar & on. 1993 (2) PLJR 211.