Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14909 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Keshari Nandan Roy @ Keshar Roy 2. Shashi Shekhar Roy @ Sashi Roy Both sons of late Chedi Roy, residents of Village Khajraitha, P.S. Parbatta, District Khagaria .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Khagaria 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gogri, District Khagaria 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Gogri, District Khagaria 5. Naresh Sharma, son of Saryug Sharma, resident of Village Bari Paikant, P.S. Pasraha, District Khagaria ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14916 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Keshari Nandan Roy @ Keshar Roy 2. Shashi Shekhar Roy @ Sashi Roy Both sons of late Chedi Roy, residents of Village Khajraitha, P.S. Parbatta, District Khagaria .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Khagaria 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gogri, District Khagaria 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Gogri, District Khagaria 5. Pulkit Chaudhary, sonof Shri Sarup Chaudhary, resident of Village Bari Paikant, P.S. Pasraha, District Khagaria ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s with Patna High Court CWJC No.14909 of 2008 (5) dt.26-09-2013 2 2/16 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15031 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Keshari Nandan Roy @ Keshar Roy 2. Shashi Shekhar Roy @ Sashi Roy Both sons of late Chedi Roy, residents of Village Khajraitha, P.S. Parbatta, District Khagaria .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Khagaria 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gogri, District Khagaria 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Gogri, District Khagaria 5. Sita Ram Sharma, son of Bishundeo Sharma, resident of Village Bari Paikant, P.S. Pasraha, District Khagaria .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15033 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Keshari Nandan Roy @ Keshar Roy 2. Shashi Shekhar Roy @ Sashi Roy Both sons of late Chedi Roy, residents of Village Khajraitha, P.S. Parbatta, District Khagaria .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Khagaria 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gogri, District Khagaria 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Gogri, District Khagaria 5. Gajendra Prasad Sharma, son of Tilakdhari Sharma, resident of Village Bari Paikant, P.S. Pasraha, District Khagaria ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15273 of 2008
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.14909 of 2008 (5) dt.26-09-2013 3 3/16 ====================================================== 1. Keshari Nandan Roy @ Keshar Roy 2. Shashi Shekhar Roy @ Sashi Roy Both sons of late Chedi Roy, residents of Village Khajraitha, P.S. Parbatta, District Khagaria .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Khagaria 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gogri, District Khagaria 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Gogri, District Khagaria 5. Chandra Shekhar Sharma, son of Madho Sharma, resident of Village Bari Paikant, P.S. Pasraha, District Khagaria ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15281 of 2008 ====================================================== Pappu Roy, son of late Chhedid Roy, resident of Village Khajraitha, P.S. Parbatta, District Khagaria .... .... Petitioner/s Versus
Legal Reasoning
1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Khagaria 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gogri, District Khagaria 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Gogri, District Khagaria 5. Ram Thakur, son of Shri Sarup Chaudhary, Sharma, resident of Village Bari Paikant, P.S. Pasraha, District Khagaria ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15335 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Keshari Nandan Roy @ Keshar Roy 2. Shashi Shekhar Roy @ Sashi Roy Patna High Court CWJC No.14909 of 2008 (5) dt.26-09-2013 4 4/16 Both sons of late Chedi Roy, residents of Village Khajraitha, P.S. Parbatta, District Khagaria .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Khagaria 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gogri, District Khagaria 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Gogri, District Khagaria 5. Rashik Lal Sharma, son of late Sati Sharma Sharma, resident of Village Bari Paikant, P.S. Pasraha, District Khagaria .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15338 of 2008 ====================================================== Bibhuti Roy, son of late Lakshmi Narayan Roy, resident of Village Khajraitha, P.S. Parbatta, District Khagaria .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Khagaria 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gogri, District Khagaria 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Gogri, District Khagaria 5. Kedar Sharma, son of Narsingh Sharma, resident of Village Bari Paikant, P.S. Pasraha, District Khagaria ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15339 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Keshari Nandan Roy @ Keshar Roy 2. Shashi Shekhar Roy @ Sashi Roy Both sons of late Chedi Roy, residents of Village Khajraitha, P.S. Parbatta, District Khagaria .... .... Petitioner/s Patna High Court CWJC No.14909 of 2008 (5) dt.26-09-2013 5 5/16 Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Khagaria 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gogri, District Khagaria 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Gogri, District Khagaria 5. Dindayal Chaudhary, son of late Sitabi Chaudhary, resident of Village Bari Paikant, P.S. Pasraha, District Khagaria ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15435 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Keshari Nandan Roy @ Keshar Roy 2. Shashi Shekhar Roy @ Sashi Roy Both sons of late Chedi Roy, residents of Village Khajraitha, P.S. Parbatta, District Khagaria .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Khagaria 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gogri, District Khagaria 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Gogri, District Khagaria 5. Phulo Sharma, son of Shri Nathan Sharma Sharma, resident of Village Bari Paikant, P.S. Pasraha, District Khagaria ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15073 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Keshari Nandan Roy @ Keshar Roy 2. Shashi Shekhar Roy @ Sashi Roy Both sons of late Chedi Roy, residents of Village Khajraitha, P.S. Parbatta, District Khagaria .... .... Petitioner/s Versus Patna High Court CWJC No.14909 of 2008 (5) dt.26-09-2013 6 6/16 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Khagaria 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gogri, District Khagaria 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Gogri, District Khagaria 5. Deoki Sharma, son of Sri Bhagwat Sharma Sharma, resident of Village Bari Paikant, P.S. Pasraha, District Khagaria .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15144 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Keshari Nandan Roy @ Keshar Roy 2. Shashi Shekhar Roy @ Sashi Roy Both sons of late Chedi Roy, residents of Village Khajraitha, P.S. Parbatta, District Khagaria .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Khagaria 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gogri, District Khagaria 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Gogri, District Khagaria 5. Dhanuki Chaudhary, son of late Jahuri Chaudhary, resident of Village Bari Paikant, P.S. Pasraha, District Khagaria ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s Appearance : (In CWJC No.14909 of 2008) For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Mahasweta Chatterjee, Advocate Mr. V. R. Sonvadra, Advocate Mr. Nibash Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, AC to SC 17 For the Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Tiwary, Advocate (In CWJC No.14916 of 2008) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vibhuti Ranjan Sonvadra, Advocate For the Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. M.D. Dwivedi, SC 23 Patna High Court CWJC No.14909 of 2008 (5) dt.26-09-2013 7 7/16 Mr. Ram Narayan, AC to SC 23 For the Respondent No.5 : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Sinha (In CWJC No.15031 of 2008) For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Mahasweta Chatterjee, Advocate For the Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, AC to SC 9 For the Resdpondent No.5 : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Tiwary, Advocate (In CWJC No.15033 of 2008) For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Mahasweta Chatterjee, Advocate For the Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, AC to SC10 For the Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Tiwary, Advocate (In CWJC No.15273 of 2008) For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. M.Chatterjee, Advocate For the Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. Neeraj Raj, AC to SC 19 For the Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Tiwary, Advocate (In CWJC No.15281 of 2008) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. M.Chhatterjee, Advocate Mr. Vibhuti Ranjan Sonvadra, Advocatge For the Respondents 1 to 4 Mr. Deepak Kumar, AC to G.P. I (In CWJC No.15335 of 2008) For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Mahasweta Chatterjee, Advocate Mr. Vibhuti Ranjan Sonvadra, Advocate For the Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. Kinkar Kumar, AC to GP 25 For the Respondent No.5 : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Tiwary, Advocate (In CWJC No.15338 of 2008) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bibhuti Ranjan Sonvadra, Advocate For the Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. Chaitanya Swaroop AC to GP 12 (In CWJC No.15339 of 2008) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bibhuti Ranjan Sonvadra, Advocate For the Respondents 1 to 4 :, Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Sinha, AC to S.C.1 For the Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Mr. Lakshmi Kant Tiwary, Advocate (In CWJC No.15435 of 2008) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bibhuti Ranjan Sonvadra, Advocate For the Respondents 1 to 4 Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG 2 (In CWJC No.15073 of 2008) Patna High Court CWJC No.14909 of 2008 (5) dt.26-09-2013 8 8/16 For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vishnu Ranjan Shonvadra, Advocate For the Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC 24 Mr. Bipin Kumar, AC to SC 24 (In CWJC No.15144 of 2008) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bibhuti Ranjan Sonvadra, Advocate For the Respondents No.5 : Mr. Lakshmi Kant Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 5 26-09-2013 In this batch of 12 writ petitions, issues of facts and issues of law are similar and identical, therefore, with the consent of the parties, all the matters have been heard together and are
Decision
being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners in each of the writ petitions are landlords and respondent No.5 in each of the writ petitions are claiming to be the under-raiyats with respect to separate areas of lands claimed by them separately, which all have been fully detailed in the pleadings of the parties in each of the writ petitions. 3. It is common case of the parties that respondent No.5 of each of the writ petitions claiming to be the under-raiyats with respect to the lands so claimed by them, filed their separate applications under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (in short ‘Act’) before the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer/D.C.L.R., Gogri, the Collector under the Act, which gave rise to Bataidari Case No. 84 of 1991-92 and its analogous cases. On the basis of the petitions filed by the under-raiyats, separate bataidari proceedings were initiated and in terms of Section 48 E(3) of the Act, the matter was referred to Batai Board for promoting settlement of batai dispute between the under-raiyats Patna High Court CWJC No.14909 of 2008 (5) dt.26-09-2013 9 9/16 and the landlords. The petitioners, besides one Rajendra Rai, were treated to be the landlords. The Chairman of the Batai Board submitted his recommendations to the Sub-Divisional Officer/D.C.L.R., Gogri, but the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gogri disagreed with the recommendations of Batai Board in terms of Section 48 E(8) of the Act and held enquiry regarding the batai claim of the claimants-respondent No.5 of the writ petitions, and finally allowed the claim of the under-raiyats with respect to the lands under dispute, so claimed by them separately. The final order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gogri, allowing the batai claim of respondent No.5, has been brought on record by the private respondent in the counter affidavits filed in each of the cases as Annexure-A. 4. It is not under dispute that the landlords, namely, petitioners and one Rajendra Rai, being aggrieved by the final order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gogri declaring the private respondents as the under-raiyats, preferred their separate Bataidari Appeals before the respondent District Collector, Khagaria under Section 48 F of the Act, which gave rise to Bataidari Appeal No.03 of 1994-95 and other connected Appeals. It is also not under dispute that in the aforesaid Bataidari Appeals filed on behalf of the landlords orders of stay were passed by the respondent District Collector, Khagaria on 27.4.1994. The order of stay passed by the respondent District Collector, Khagaria has been brought on record by the private respondent at Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. No. 14909 of 2008 as also in other connected writ petitions. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on different dates for one reason or the other by the respondent District Collector, Khagaria and finally the appeals preferred by the landlords were dismissed for want of prosecution Patna High Court CWJC No.14909 of 2008 (5) dt.26-09-2013 10 10/16 by an order dated 12.7.2000 ( Annexure-1 to each of the writ petitions.). However, after about 8 years Miscellaneous Cases were filed by the present petitioners before the respondent District Collector, Khagaria for restoration of the aforesaid Bataidari Appeals, which were dismissed as far back as in the year 2000, but the prayer for restoration has been rejected by the impugned order dated 21.7.2008 passed in Misc.Case No. 32 of 2008-2009, as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition No. 14909 of 2008, and by separate similar orders passed in different Misc. Cases in the connected writ petitions, on the ground of being filed belatedly. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the final separate orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gogri in Batai Cases filed on behalf of the private respondents were in fact ex parte orders and reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given to them by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Gogri before passing the final orders allowing the claims of the under-raiyats. 6. It is next contended that Rajendra Rai was full brother of the petitioners namely Keshari Nandan Roy @ Keshar Roy and Shashi Shekhar Roy @ Shashi Roy and he was in-charge with respect to all the Bataidari Appeals filed before the respondent District Collector, Khagaria against the final orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gogri. It has been pleaded by the petitioners that during the pendency of the Bataidari Appeals aforesaid Rajendra Rai passed away and, therefore, petition for restoration of Bataidari Appeals were filed belatedly. It has also been pleaded that not only aforesaid Rajendra Rai passed away, but the conducting lawyer as also the conducting Advocate’s clerk also passed away and as such all the Bataidari Patna High Court CWJC No.14909 of 2008 (5) dt.26-09-2013 11 11/16 Appeals were dismissed on account of non-prosecution by separate orders passed on 12.7.2000. However Misc Case No. 32 of 2008-09 as also other Misc. Cases in the other connected cases were filed for restoration of the aforesaid Bataidari Appeals in the year 2008 belatedly. It is lastly submitted that for the ends of justice, the impugned orders may be set aside and the respondent District Collector, Khagaria may be directed to decide the Bataidari Appeals filed on behalf of the petitioners on merits after hearing all concerned. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5, the under-raiyat in each of the writ petitions, has strongly opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners in each of the cases. It is contended by him that, in fact, the matter was referred to the Batai Board after hearing the under-raiyats as also the landlords. After recommendations were made by the Chairman of the Batai Board without following the procedures under Sections 48 E of the Act, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gogri disagreed with the such recommendation and decided to hold an inquiry under the provisions of Section 48E (8) of the Act for passing final order, and thereafter the landlords refused to participate in the proceeding. Hence according to the learned counsel, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gogri had no option but to proceed further and decide the claims of the under-raiyats. It is submitted that the claims of respondent No.5 in each of the writ petitions have rightly been allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gogri. It is further pointed out on behalf of the under-raiyats that since the orders of stay were passed by the respondent District Collector, Khagaria as far back as in the year 1994, therefore, the landlords were not interested in getting the Batai Appeals disposed of and they deliberately delayed the disposal of Batai Appeals, Patna High Court CWJC No.14909 of 2008 (5) dt.26-09-2013 12 12/16 which were finally dismissed for want of prosecution as far back as in the year 2000. It is highlighted by the learned counsel that though Batai Appeals filed on behalf of the petitioners were dismissed in the year 2000, yet Misc. Cases seeking restoration of the aforesaid Bataidari Appeals were filed after unduly long delay of 8 years, which have rightly been dismissed by the respondent District Collector. By referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit, it has been pointed out by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 in each of the writ petitions that, in fact, the statement made on behalf of the petitioners that their lawyer passed away during the pendency of the Batai Appeals is incorrect and, in fact, he is still alive. 8. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on the record, this Court finds that the Bataidari Appeals were filed by the petitioners besides aforesaid Rajendra Rai as far back as in the year 1994 and in all the Bataidari Appeals orders of stay were passed by the respondent District Collector, Khagaria but for one reason or the other, all those Bataidari Appeals remained pending for quite a long time and finally all the Bataidari Appeals were dismissed on 12.7.2000. Petitions for restoration of the Bataidari Appeals were filed after a long delay of 8 years, which have been dismissed by the respondent District Collector, Khagaria by the impugned order dated 21.7.2008. 9. Apparently, the matter has not been decided on merits. According to the petitioners the orders passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Gogri were ex parte orders, though according to respondent No.5, all the under-raiyats and the landlords were appearing and had contested the matters at the initial stage, but subsequently the landlords voluntarily did not participate in the Patna High Court CWJC No.14909 of 2008 (5) dt.26-09-2013 13 13/16 proceedings, therefore, they cannot take a plea that the orders passed by the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer, Gogri were ex parte order. 10. Unfortunately, the entire order sheet of Bataidari cases filed by respondent No.5 in each of the writ petitions has not been brought on record either by the petitioners or by the respondent No.5. These are the issues, which were/are required to be gone into by the appellate authority. There is an old maxim that Justice should not only be done, but it should appear to have been done. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the petitioners for getting their Bataidari Appeals decided on merit, but at the same time the under-raiyats are also required to be compensated adequately because they have suffered harassment on account of laches and negligence on the part of the petitioners- landlaords. 11. In order to do complete justice between the parties, this Court is inclined to remit the matter back to the respondent District collector, Khagaria, but on payment of costs, with a direction to decide all the Bataidari Appeals filed on behalf of the petitioners on merits by a reasoned and speaking order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides, at an early date, since the matter has already been delayed for the reasons disclosed above. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned order dated 21.7.2008 ( Annexure-3) passed in Misc. Case No. 32 of 2008-2009 as also the impugned order dated 12.7.2000 (Annexure-1) passed in Bataidari Appeal Case No. 3 of 1994-95 in C.W. J.C. No. 14909 of 2008, impugned order dated 21.7.2008 (Annexure-3) passed in Misc. Case No. 31 of 2008-09 as also the Patna High Court CWJC No.14909 of 2008 (5) dt.26-09-2013 14 14/16 impugned order dated 12.7.2000 (Annexure-1) passed in Bataidari Appeal case No. 6 of 1994-95 in C.W.J.C. No. 14916 of 2008, impugned order dated 21.7.2008 passed in Misc. Case No. 26 of 2008-09 (Annexure-3), as also the impugned order dated 12.7.2000 ( Annexure-1) passed in Bataidari Appeal case No. 4 of 1994-95 in C.W.J.C. No.15031 of 2008, impugned order dated 21.7.2008 passed in Misc. Case No. 29 of 2008-09 (Annexure-3) as also the impugned order dated 12.7.2000 passed in Bataidari Appeal Case No. 2 of 1994-95 ( Annexure 1) in C.W.J.C. No. 15033 of 2008, impugned order dated 21.7.2008 passed in Misc.Case No. 35 of 2008-09 ( Annexure-3), as also the impugned order dated 12.7.2000 passed in Bataidari Appeal Case No. 8 of 1994 in C.W.J.C. No. 15273 of 2008, impugned order dated 21.7.2008 passed in Misc. Case No. 37 of 2008-09 (Annexure-3) as also the impugned order dated 12.7.2000 passed in Bataidari Appeal Case No. 12 of 1994-95 ( Annexure-1) in C.W.J.C. No. 15281 of 2008, impugned order dated 21.7.2008 passed in Misc. Case No. 27 of 2008 ( Annexure-3) as also the impugned order dated 12.7.2000 passed in Bataidari Appeal Case No. 10 of 1994- 95 ( Annexure-1) in C.W.J.C .No. 15335 of 2008, impugned order dated 21.7.2008 passed in Misc.Case No. 38 of 2008-09 (Annexure-3) as also the impugned order dated 12.7.2000 passed in Bataidari Appeal Case No. 14 of 1994-95( ( Annexure-1) in C.W.J.C. No. 15338 of 2008, impugned order dated 21.7.2008 passed in Misc.Case No. 30 of 2008-09 ( Annexure-3) as also the impugned order dated 12.7.2000 passed in Bataidari Appeal Case No. 5 of 1994-95 ( Annexure-1) in C.W.J.C. No. 15339 of 2008, impugned order dated 21.7.2008 passed in Misc.Case No. 25 of 2008-09 ( Annexure-3) as also the impugned order dated 12.7.2000 passed in Bataidari Appeal Case No. 13 of 1994-95 Patna High Court CWJC No.14909 of 2008 (5) dt.26-09-2013 15 15/16 (Annexure-1) in C.W.J.C.No. 15435 of 2008, impugned order dated 21.7.2008 passed in Misc. Case No. 33 of 2008-09 (Annexure-3) as also the impugned order dated 12.7.2000 passed in Bataidari Appeal Case No. 11 of 1994-95 ( Annexure-1) in C.W.J.C.No. 15073 of 2008 and the impugned order dated 21.7.2008 passed in Misc.Case No. 28 of 2008-09( Annexure-3) as also the impugned order dated 12.7.2000 passed in Bataidari Appeal Case No.7 of 1994-95 (Annexure-1) in C.W.J.C.No.15144 of 2008) passed by the respondent District Collector, Khagaria, are hereby set aside and all the matters are remitted back to the respondent District Collector, Khagaria, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- ( Rupees five thousand) to the respondent No.5 of each of the writ petitions separately and filing a receipt in token thereof before the respondent District Collector, Khagaria within a period of one month from today. Alternatively the petitioners shall deposit Rs. 5,000/- in each of the cases before the respondent District Collector, Khagaria within aforesaid period of one month, whereafter the under-raiyats of each cases shall be entitled to withdraw and receive the amount of costs. 13. It is clarified that in case the petitioners fail to deposit/pay the costs of aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent No.5 of each of the cases within the aforesaid period of one month, then it shall be construed that all the writ petitions stood rejected on account of non-compliance of the Court’s order. 14. If costs is deposited/paid by the petitioners within the aforesaid period of time, then all the Bataidari Appeals filed on behalf of the petitioners, which are subject matter of this batch of writ petitions, shall be restored to their respective original files and thereafter, the petitioners as also respondent no. 5 of each of the writ petitions shall fully co-operate for early disposal of all Patna High Court CWJC No.14909 of 2008 (5) dt.26-09-2013 16 16/16 those Bataidari Appeals. 15. The respondent District Collector, Khagaria, shall make all endeavours to decide those Bataidari Appeals at an early date, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of deposit/payment of costs by the petitioners. 16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the writ petitions stand finally disposed of. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)