SHIVANANDAN ROY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -These three writ application arise out of three proceedings under section 48-E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, and, as the facts and points arising in them are similar, they have been heard together at the joint suggestion of the parties and this common judgment will govern them.

(2.) The petitioners in the three cases or common. Respondent no. 5 in each of these cases claimed to be Bataidar in respect of different plots of lands fully described in the respective writ applications and the proceeding out of which they arise.

(3.) On the 28th February, 1974, the three Bataidars filed applications under section 48-E of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bhagalpur (Respondent no 3), giving rise to three cases. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector enquired into the claims of the Bataidars for the purpose of finding out as to whether they were able to make out prima facie case and, by orders dated the 7th March, 1975 (as contained in Annexure '4' to each of the writ application), he recorded a finding that the Bataidars failed to make out prima fade case. He, therefore, refused to draw up a proceeding. Against these orders, the three Bataidars filed appeals before the Collector of Bhagalpur (Respondent no. 2), which were registered as Revenue Appeals nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 1975-76. By his orders dated the 1st October, 1975 (as contained in Annexures '5', '5-A' and '5', respectively, in the three cases) the Collector (Respondent no. 2) set aside the orders passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (Respondent no. 3), and directed him to draw up proceedings, constituted Bataidari Boards and proceed with the same in accordance with law. Further steps were accordingly taken and the Bataidari Board, constituted in each case, submitted reports, which are Annexures '7' '7' and 'o', respectively to the three writ applications. Two of the reports, namely, those in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Cases nos. 491 and 493 were in favour of the petitioners (landlords), while the third, as contained in Annexure '6' to the writ application in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case no. 494 of 1977, was in favour of the Bataidar in that case. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, thereafter directed the Board to submit fresh reports in cases giving rise to Civil Writ Jurisdiction Cases nos. 491 and 493 of 1977. The Board, Accordingly, submitted fresh reports, which are annexed to the two writ application as Annexure '9'. The findings in these reports were given against the landlords. Orders were thereafter passed on the 3rd January, 1977, against the petitioners, which are respectively, Annexure '10', '10' and '7', in the writ applications. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the orders passed by the Collector in Revenue Appeals nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 1975-76 (Annexure '5', '5-A' and '5' respectively in the three cases), the orders passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, dated the 12th July, 1976 (Annexure '8' to C.W.J. C. nos. 491 and 493 of 1977), directing the Bataidari Boards to submitt fresh reports, reports of the Bataidari Boards dated the 28th August, 1976 (Annexure '9' to C. W. J. C. nos. 491 and 493), as also the orders of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector dated the 3rd January, 1977 (Annexure '10', '10' and '7' respectively, in the three cases), by which the three proceedings have been finally decided against the petitioners. The petitioners have also challenged the report of the Bataidari Board dated the 28th June, 1 76 (Annexure '7' to the writ application in C. W. J. C. no. 494 of 1977).