GULABIDEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This letters patent appeal arises from the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 6575 of 1994. The appellants, 31 in number, along with others had filed applications under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter called, the Act) which were rejected by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR), Teghra exercising the powers of the Collector under the Act. They came to this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. The challenge to the order of the DCLR having gone in vain before the learned Single Judge they have come in appeal before the Division Bench.

(2.) The order of the DCLR seems to have been assailed before the learned single Judge on the ground that at the stage of initiation of the proceeding under Section 48E (1) of the Act, the Collector is not required to hold a fullfledged trial, he is merely required to refer the dispute to the Conciliation Board. The DCLR however issued notice to the landlord and went in to the merits of the case and ultimately rejected the applications without following the procedure laid down under Section 48E and the rules framed in that regard. Such a course, according to the appellants, was not in accordance with the Full Bench decision of this court in Dhanji Singh v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1979 Patna 259 : 1979 BBCJ ; 1979 BLJ 621 521 (F.B.) identical submissions were made before us as well. The only point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the DCLR is in accordance with law. In other words, whether the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, of the appellants required any modification.

(3.) N.P. Singh, J. who delivered the leading judgment in the case of Dhanji Singh (supra) after considering the relevant provisions of the Act and the case law on the point observed: