OZAIR GHAFFARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since in both the writ applications petitioners are same and respondent No. 4 in both the writ applications are brothers who have filed application for declaration of their bataidari right under Section 48-E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, by a similar order passed in Bataidari Appeal No. 64 of 1994 and Bataidari Appeal No. 65 of 1994, the Collector, Kishanganj, has allowed the appeal with similar finding, as such, both the writ applications are being heard the disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The land in dispute in C.W.J.C. No. 14860 of 2001 is appertaining to khata No. 37, plot Nos. 477, 469 and 465 measuring 4.84 acres of village Dubrikhas and the land in dispute in C.W.J.C. No. 14955 of 2001 is the land of khata No. 37, plot Nos. 69 and 465 measuring 4.83 acres of village Dubrikhas. Respondent No. 4 in both the writ applications, who are brothers, filed an application on 20.2.1992 before the Dy Collector Land Reforms, Kishanganj, under Section 48-E of the Bihar Tenancy Act for their bataidari right over the land mentioned above. Bataidari Case No. 40 of 1991-92 and 41 of 1991-92 were registered. A Bataidari Board was constituted for reconciliation between the petitioners and respondents. The Bataidari Board submitted a report dated 4.3.1994 stating that efforts for reconciliation were made but it failed and gave a finding that the claim of the applicants were wrong and they were not bataidars of the land as the age of the applicants were assessed near about 24/25 years and in their applications they claimed to be bataidars of the land for more than 21 years. It was also found that they are residing at seven kilometers away from the land and it was not possible for them to cultivate the land as bataidars from such a distance. Considering the report of the Conciliation Board, the Dy. Collector Land Reforms after hearing the parties, by his order dated 15.4.1994 rejected the application filed by respondent No. 4 in both the cases. Against this order passed by the Dy. Collector Land Reforms, respondent No. 4 in both the writ applications preferred appeal case No. 64 of 1994 and Appeal Case No. 65 of 1994 before the Collector, Kishanganj. The appellate authority without looking into the merit of the case and without considering the report of the Conciliation Board, Conciliation Board allowed the appeals relying on the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Kishanganj, wherein applicant respondent No. 4 in both the writ applicants were recorded as bataidars with respect to the land in question.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as relying on the order passed in a consolidation proceeding the appellate authority has allowed the appeals preferred by respondent No. 4 in both the writ applications, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction. Section 4 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act reads :