SURESH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR WITH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for the State in both the writ application.

(2.) There is representation on behalf of the private respondents. In both writ applications Annexure -1 are under challenge and the impugned orders are dated 16.8.1989. The proceedings have emerged out of an application which was filed by the respondents under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act. Though after initiation of the proceeding the Anchala Adhikari was nominated as Chairman of the Board but subsequently while exercising power under Section 48E(10) of the Act the matter was taken back from the Board and the same was decided by D.C.L.R. as is evident from the impugned orders.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assails the said order on some pointed submission. The submission is that though the Anchala Adhikari was nominated as Chairman of the Board the two members of the said Board representing the two parties were never nominated. Only notices were issued to the parties and the matter kept being adjourned for one reason or the other. No efforts were being made for reconciliation and even proper hearing was not done in the given case. His second limb of submission is that in the present case since powers were exercised by Collector under Section 48E(10) of the Act by withdrawing the proceeding from the Board this power had to be exercised de novo.