BACHU PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three intra-court appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court have a chequered history. The appellants, namely, Bachu Prasad, Chabila Prasad Yadav and Mishari Rai were the three writ petitioners and they claim to be bataidars (under-raiyats). Their claim has been rejected by the D.C.L.R, Motihari, which has not been interfered with by the Additional Collector, Motihari being Collector under the Bihar Tenancy Act (for short the Act) in appeal. Hence the writ petition.

(2.) The sole contention on behalf of the appellants was the same as before the learned Single Judge, that no sooner an application under Sec. 48E of the Act is filed by a person claiming to be an under-raiyat being threatened, inter alia, to be evicted by the landlord, the Collector immediately was obliged to refer the matter to the Board for conciliation and then proceed on basis of the report of the Board in the matter.

(3.) The fact being that notwithstanding an application being made by the writ petitioner-appellants the D.C.L.R. dismissed the application and in the appeal such an action was not interfered with, thus, Sec. 48E(3) of the Act was not correctly followed. The learned Single Judge taking note of the facts by the authorities under the Act did not accept the claim or the submission of the writ petitioners and dismissed the writ petition.