SUSHILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of the Collector of the District by which her appeal against an order passed by the D.C.L.R. in 48E proceedings under the B.T. Act has been dismissed. The claimant Bataidar being respondent no. 5 was noticed by this court, they appeared and time was given tp file counter affidavit. But neither any counter affidavit has been filed nor they are represented in court today. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State with their consent this writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner is recorded as Khatiyani Raiyat of the land in question. Respondent No. 5 sought to initiate a proceedings in terms of 48E of the B.T. Act. In the said proceedings, he made the husband of the petitioner and the brother of the petitioner (Sala and Bahnoi) as party and left out the petitioner who was the khatiyani raiyat. The petitioner had received the said property as gift from her mother -in -law (Stridhan property). This fact I have noticed only to show that by no stretch of imagination this property could be said to be joint family property even to the knowledge of the respondent no. 5, the alleged bataidar. However, the application being filed by the Respondent No. 5. D.C.L.R. being prima facie satisfied that a dispute of the nature as contemplated under section 48E existed, he referred the matter to Conciliation Board. It is not in dispute that by then petitioner had appeared in the proceedings though not added as a party and put her claim yet the Conciliation Board did not think it appropriate even to notice her, notwithstanding that she was the recorded tenant (khatiyani raiyat). The Conciliation Board -was not able to bring about amicable settlement. It conducted an enquiry and held respondent no. 5 to be a Bataidar. This recommendation was made to the D.C.L.R. and on the basis thereof, D.C.L.R. passed the order. While passing the said order D.C.L.R, noticed the controversy with regard to the petitioner and her right but held that the husband of the petitioner was the Karta of the joint family and he being a party, there was no necessity to make petitioner a party or noticed the petitioner even though it was undisputed that the petitioner was the khatiyani raiyat and not her husband or her brother.