PRABHU YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned AC to learned PAAG appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 5. However, despite valid service of notice, none appears on behalf of the respondent no. 6 to 8 to contest the claims raised on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 08.07.2004 passed in Bataidari Case No. 33 of 1993-94 and 17 of 2003-04 by the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer, Benipatti-cum- Bataidari Magistrate, Benipatti, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, whereby the Batai claims of private respondent no. 6 to 8 were allowed and Bataidari parcha with respect to the lands in question was directed to be issued in their favour. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 24.06.2005/ 27.06.2005 passed in Bataidari Appeal Case No. 18 of 2004-2005 read with Bataidari Appeal No. 14 of 2004-05, as contained in Annexure-5, whereby aforesaid Bataidari Appeal filed on behalf of the petitioners was rejected and the order passed by the respondent S.D.O. was affirmed.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel submits that, in fact, the petitioner is the purchaser from the original landholder. Therefore, he filed intervention petition in the Bataidari cases filed on behalf of the respondent no. 6 to 8. It is further submitted that by a common impugned order dated 08.07.2004 (Annexure-4) as many as 19 Batai cases were allowed in favour of the respondent no. 6 to 8 and other claimants. It is also submitted that against the original order (Annexure-4), 19 separate Batai appeals were filed and all the Bataidari appeals filed by the purchasers were dismissed by a common order dated 24.06.2005/ 27.06.2005 by the respondent District Collector, Madhubani. It is next submitted that the purchasers, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, preferred several writ petitions before this Court challenging the original order as contained in Annexure-4, as also the appellate order, as contained in Annexure- 5, and a bunch of writ petitions vide C.W.J.C. No. 507 of 2007, and its analogous matters were heard together and were finally allowed by a common judgment and order dated 23.12.2013 by a Bench of this Court [Coram: Jyoti Saran,J], a photocopy of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 23.12.20013 has been produced before this Court.