SITA RAM MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed on behalf of ten persons who claim Bataidari rights in respect of different pieces of land under respondents 5 to 7. Their claim, at the 1st instance, was rejected by the DCLR, Khagaria by order dated 2-11-91 (Annexure 3) in Bataidari Case No. 15/89- 90 / 22/90-91. An appeal against this order was rejected by the Addl. Collector, Khagaria by order dated 11-11-93 (Annexure 4) in Bataidari Appeal No. 16/91-92. This writ petition has been filed challenging these two orders.

(2.) The petitioners filed applications under Section 48-E of the Bihar Tenancy Act ('the Act', hereinafter) claiming Bataidari rights over different pieces of land under respondents 5 to 7. The respective pieces of land claimed by each of the petitioners have been described in detail in both the orders coming under challenge in this writ petition. The claims filed by the petitioners gave rise to Bataidari Case Nos. 15 to 24 of 1989-90. All the claims appear to have been consolidated into one proceeding and a common Bataidari Board was constituted, of which the Anchal Adhikari, Belaur was appointed as the Chairman. The parties to the dispute, namely, the claimants of Bataidari rights and the land holders also nominated their respective Panches. On the basis of an enquiry made by it, the Board recorded its findings in support of the petitioner's claim and submitted its report accordingly. On receipt of the report from the Board, the DCLR heard the parties and in disagreement with the Board's findings and report disallowed the petitioner's claim holding it to be not maintainable against the land holders. In appeal, the Addl. Collector confirmed the order passed by the DCLR and held that the petitioners' claim was false and untrue.

(3.) Mr. Birendra Pd. Verma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners first submitted that the orders passed by the DCLR and then in appeal, by the Addl. Collector were illegal and without jurisdiction because those were contrary to the findings and report of the Bataidari Board. Learned Counsel contended that on a proper interpretation, the provision contained in sub-section (8) of Section 48-E of the Act must be construed to mean that disagreement with the report of the findings of the Board was permissible only in case the report of the Board was in support of the land holder and against the claimants of Bataidari rights. According to his submissions, it was not open to the Collector to take a view in disagreement if the report or the findings of the Board supported the claim of the Bataidar. In support of this extreme proposition, Mr. Verma relied upon the three sub-clauses of sub-section (8) of Section 48-E and submitted that in case of disagreement with the report of the Board, the Collector was to act, depending upon the eventuality in accordance with any one of the three sub-clauses which all were aimed at protecting the rights of the Bataidars. Mr. Verma submitted that Section 48-E of the Act was a beneficial piece of legislation and it, therefore, must receive an interpretation which would protect, safeguard and advance the interests of the Bataidars. He accordingly submitted that the provisions contained in Section 48-E must be understood to say that the Collector could disagree with the report or the findings of the Board only in case it was in favour of the land holder and against the claimants of Bataidari rights.