MUKHLAL RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in this application, has questioned the legality of an order, dated 30.9.2002, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bikramganj, Rohtas, in purported exercise of power under Section 48-E of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as, the Act) in Bataidari Case No. 1 of 1982-83 (Annexure-3).

(2.) Petitioner filed an application on 3.6.1982 before the Anchal Adhikari, Dinara, Rohtas, for giving him protection from the unlawful ejectment by the original land holder, Kashi Sah, father of respondents 4 and 5. This application was forwarded by the Anchal Adhikari to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sasaram, who was the Collector under the Act. Petitioner claimed his bataidari right with respect to the lands of village Mahraur appertaining to khata No. 159 measuring 2.70 acres. Bataidari Case No. 1 of 1982-1983 was registered and a notice to the original land holder was issued to show cause as to why the claim of the petitioner be not accepted under Section 48-E of the Act. The land holder appeared and filed his objection regarding the initiation of the proceeding with respect to all three plots, impleading him only as a party respondent. Kashi Sah stated that he is recorded land holder of only one plot and other two plots are recorded in the name of Radha Krishna Sah (respondent No. 4). He also stated that he owns less than ten acres of unirrigated land as such proceeding under Section 48-E should be dropped. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sasaram, after holding full enquiry dropped the proceeding by order, dated 14.8.1982. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWJC No. 843 of 1983 which was dismissed by order, dated 5.12.1994. Petitioner preferred L.P.A. No. 9 of 1995 against the order passed in the writ application which was allowed by order dated 23.8.1996. The case was remitted to the Court of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, with a direction to constitute the Board in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 48-E of the Act and to refer the matter to Conciliation Board. By that time the area within which the disputed plots are located came under the jurisdiction of Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bikramganj, as such, petitioner filed his application before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bikramganj, to constitute a Batai Board in the light of an order and direction of this Hon'ble Court. Petitioner's grievance is that in complete violation of the mandate of Rule 2(a) to 2(f) of the Bihar Tenancy Rules, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, directed the Circle Officer, Dinara, to obtain the name of panches from land lord, respondents 4 and 5, and their father. No notice was given to the petitioner in terms of Rule 2 of the Rules for raising objection regarding appointment of Circle Officer, Dinara, as Chairman of the Batai Board. Batai Board was not constituted fully even after passage of more than six months and the petitioner filed a petition for constitution of another Board. By order, dated 11.7.2000, another Board was constituted, Circle Officer, Bikramganj, was appointed as the Chairman of the Batai Board and he was directed to obtain names of panches from both sides which was illegal as the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, himself should have constituted the entire Board instead of directing the Chairman of the Batai Board to collect the names of panches from the parties. More than six months passed but the so called Board did not submit its report, hence, another petition was filed by the petitioner for withdrawing the proceeding from Anchal Adhikari, Bikramganj. Thereafter, another Board was constituted by which Anchal Adhikari, Dinara, Rohtas, was appointed as Chairman. This time also the panches from both sides were not appointed by the Collector under the Act as such, the constitution of the Board was not in compliance of the provision under Section 48-E and Rule 2 of the Act. The Anchal Adhikari, Dinara, Rohtas, in capacity of the Chairman of the Board, submitted his report without making any endeavour for amicable settlement between the parties and without complying with the requirement of the provisions of the Act. The Constitution of the Board was in complete violation of the mandate of Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 48-E of the Act and Rules 2(a) to 2(f) of the Batai Rules. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, on receipt of the report, submitted by the Chairman of the Batai Board, passed his final order, dated 30.9.2002, rejecting the claim of the petitioner on patently misconceived notion of law. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the Batai Board was never constituted in accordance with the mandate of the Act and Rules. No endeavour was made for amicable settlement in between the parties, the so called report submitted by the Chairman of the Board was in flagrant violation of the provisions under Section 4(6) of the B.T. Act as it was individual report of the Chairman and not of the Board. The order was passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, on the basis of such report without considering the facts and the law involved in the case.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 5 stating that claim of the petitioner being an under raiyat of respondent No. 5 is absolutely false and baseless. He has never been in cultivating possession of the land. The grounds on which the petitioner has questioned the impugned order is unfounded and baseless. The provisions of Rules 2(d), 2(e) and 2(f) have fully been complied and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.