LAWS(PAT)-2016-9-95

PRADHAN KISKU SON OF LATE BAIJU KISKU, RESIDENT OF HRIDAYGANJ (SANTHALI TOLA) P.S. KATIHAR, DISTRICT Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On September 06, 2016
Pradhan Kisku Son Of Late Baiju Kisku, Resident Of Hridayganj (Santhali Tola) P.S. Katihar, District Appellant
V/S
THE STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned AC to AAG-3, appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3. However, despite valid service of notice, none appears on behalf of the respondent no. 4.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.4.2007 passed in Bataidari Case No. 417 of 2006-07 by the respondent D.C.L.R., Katihar, as contained in Annexure-2, whereby the aforesaid Batai case filed on behalf of the petitioner with respect to the lands in question, fully detailed in paragraph-4 of the writ petition, has been rejected basically on the ground of res judicata.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while assailing the validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 18.4.2007 (Annexure-2), submits that it is true that with respect to same plots of land the petitioner had filed Bataidari Case No. 341 of 2005-06, but on account of certain defects with respect to description of lands, the aforesaid batai case was disposed of by the respondent D.C.L.R., Katihar by order dated 3.11.2006, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, but with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh Batai case in the same subject matter. To buttress his aforesaid submissions, he has read out the aforesaid order dated 3.11.2006. It is contended that in view of the liberty granted by the then D.C.L.R., Katihar, the petitioner filed his fresh case u/s 48E of the B.T.Act, giving rise to Batai case No. 341 of 2006-07 before the respondent D.C.L.R., Katihar, but he, without considering the observations made in the order dated 3.11.2006 (Annexure-1), rejected the batai claim of the petitioner at the very threshold purportedly on the ground of res judicata. He next submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the judicial pronouncements of the Special Bench of this Court in the case of Dhanji Singh Vs. State of Bihar [ 1979 PLJR 247= 1979 BBCJ 521] .