Karuna Devi @ Karuna Saran v. The State Of Bihar & Ors. [alongwith Cwjc Nos. 11246

V.N. Sinha, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and the counsel for Respondent No. 3 in all the writ applications. Petitioners are the raiyats of the lands in-question. They are aggrieved by the order dated 27.12.2000 passed by Collector, Khagaria in Bataidari Appeal No. 5 of 1993-94 and other analogous appeals, Annexure-3, whereunder the order dated 21.4.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Gogri, Khagaria in Bataidari Case No. 136, 137, 140, 68, 70, 71, 73, 141, 72, 82, 83, 79 of 1991-92, Annexure-2 has been set aside holding that there is no Bataidari dispute between the parties as landholders are prima facie protected under Section 48C of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as " the").

2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that against the order dated 21.4.1993, Annexure-2 refusing to initiate Bataidari proceeding there does not lie any appeal, as such, the order dated 27.12.2000, Annexure-3 passed in appeal against the order dated 21.4.1993, Annexure-2 is wholly without jurisdiction and should be set aside.

3. Counsel for the private respondents however, contended that the order dated 27.12.2000, Annexure-3 may be without jurisdiction but order dated 21.4.1993, Annexure-2 is also not in accordance with law as Section 48C of thehas no application while considering the case of the under raiyat for prevention of threatened ejectment, as is required under Section 48E of the. In this connection he pointed out that in the event the under raiyat alleges threatened ejectment, the Collector under the has only to satisfy about the existence of a prima facie dispute on the basis of relevant materials placed before him and if the materials placed before the Collector under the indicate existence of a Bataidari dispute of threatened ejectment then he has to initiate the proceeding by constituting a Conciliation Board and thereafter the Board shall proceed in accordance with law by first conciliating the dispute between the parties. In the event conciliation efforts failed, Board should examine witnesses on behalf of the under raiyat and the raiyat and thereafter make recommendation to the Collector under the and the Collector under the after hearing the parties over the recommendation of the Board shall pass final orders.

4. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the impugned order dated 27.12.2000 passed by Collector, Khagaria in Bataidari Appeal No. 5 of 1993-94 and other analogous appeals, Annexure-3 as also the original order dated 21.4.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Gogri, Khagaria in Bataidari Case Nos. 136, 137, 140, 68, 70, 71, 73, 141, 72, 82, 83, 79 of 1991-92, Annexure2 are not in accordance with law, as such, are set aside and the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Gogri, Khagaria, Respondent No. 2 is directed to examine the contents of each of the petition filed by the private respondents and then to satisfy himself as to whether materials have been placed on record raising a Bataidari dispute and in the event the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Gogri is satisfied that there exists a Bataidari dispute between the parties then only he shall constitute a Conciliation Board and make reference to it in accordance with law. These writ applications are, accordingly, disposed of.