HARI PRASAD MANDAL Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common questions of law and fact are involved in all these sixteen writ applications, with consent of parties, they have been heard together and are being disposed of together by this common order.

(2.) The petitioners claim to be bataidars in respect of the lands in dispute in each of these writ applications and they have prayed for quashing an order of the Additional Collector dated the 3rd June, 1977, setting aside the order of the Deputy Collector Incharge Land Reforms (respondent No. 2) passed under Sub-section (7) of Section 48-E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") near about the same period in May 1975. The petitioners in these writ applications filed applications under Section 48-E of the Act claiming to be bataidars in respect of the lands mentioned in the applications, the details of which need not be mentioned. On receipt of the applications respondent No. 2 constituted a Batai Board and referred the matter to the Board. On 29th April, 1976, the Board submitted its recommendation to the effect that the petitioners' claim to be bataidars in respect of the lands was correct. Respondent No. 2 accepted the recommendations of the Board in all the cases and confirmed the findings of the Board under Sub-section (7) of Section 48-E of the Act. The land owner* who is respondent No. 3 in each of the writ applications, filed appeals before the Additional Collector purported to be under Section 48-F of the Act and the appeals were heard together and the Additional Collector by his order dated 3rd June, 1977, allowed the appeals and remanded the matter to respondent No. 2 for a fresh consideration in accordance with law. It is against this order of the Additional Collector that all these writ applications have been filed and the main ground taken in all these writ applications is that no appeal lay before the Additional Collector, and, therefore, the order of the Additional Collector was wholly without jurisdiction. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 alleging illegality committed by respondent No. 2 in the constitution of the Batai Board and the failure on the part of the Board to comply with the mandatory provision to effectuate compromise between the parties on which ground alone the findings of the Board and the order of respondent No. 2 were wholly illegal. Other facts which are relevant will be referred to in course of the judgment.

(3.) Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners, has urged that the order of the Deputy Collector Incharge Land Reforms (respondent No. 2) having affirmed the finding of the Board under Sub-section (7) of Section 48-E and being not one of disagreement under Sub-section (8) of Section 48-E, no appeal lay against that order and the order became final. There is substance in the submission of learned Counsel. The appeal is provided only when an order is passed under Sub-section (8) of Section 48-E as provided under Section 48-F of the Act and was so held by a Bench of this Court in the case of Jat Ram Das Bhatia v. Hari Nandan Singh 1976 B.B.C.J. 476. It is, therefore, manifest that the order of the Additional Collector in all these Cases is without jurisdiction.