DEO NARAIN MOCHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ application the petitioners, who claim to be Bataidars of respondents Nos. 3 to 5 over the lands bearing plot Nos. 1605,369 and 375/76 comprising an area of 11,16.2 and 17.6 decimals respectively, have prayed for quashing of the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Khagaria (respondent No. 2) on 11-8-94 in Batai case Nos. 144/75-76 and 116/74-75 dismissing the said cases initiated on the application of the petitioners solely on the ground that the respondents being small landlords were protected by the rights guaranteed to them under section 48-C of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Further, a prayer has been made to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess them and dispose of the two Bataidari cases in accordance with law.

(2.) This writ-petition was admitted for hearing on 25-3-85 and has been pending in this Court for now almost eleven years.

(3.) In short, the relevant facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioners having claimed to be landless persons and maintaining themselves by cultivating lands of the concerned respondents on Batai and by doing some other manual works, and being threatened of ejectment by their aforementioned landlords, filed the aforementioned Bataidari cases under Section 48-E of the Act. it appears that the Batai Board upheld the claim of the petitionecs and recommended to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector in their favour and the L.R.D.C. affirmed the findings Of the Bataidari Board holding them to be Bataidars over the said lands. The respondents-landlords preferred appeal before the Additional Collector, who also finding no illegality in the orders of the Bataidari Board and that of the L.R.D.S., rejected the appeals. Thereafter, the respondents filed writ cases being C.W.J.C. Nos. 793/78 and 1326/78, which were finally allowed by this Court vide order contained in Annexure-I and both the matters were remitted to the Collector for fresh constitution of the Board in accordance with law after issuing notices to the parties concerned. On receipt of the said orders of this Court the L.R.D.C. heard the parties and finally rejected the Bataidari cases by the impugned orders contained in Annexures 2 and 3.