Smt.Renu Devi, wife of late Vijay Kumar Choudhary, resident of Patal Babu Road, Mundi v. 1. The State of Bihar 2. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Banka, District Bhagalpur 3
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7127 of 1990 Smt.Renu Devi, wife of late Vijay Kumar Choudhary, resident of Patal Babu Road, Mundi Chak, P.S. Kotwali, District Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Banka, District Bhagalpur 3. Rit Lal Singh, son of Mahabir Prasad Singh, village Arsanda, P.O., P.S. Ghoraiya, District Bhagalpur 4. Circle Officer, Ghoraiya, District Bhagalpur ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.523 of 1991 ====================================================== Shib Kumar Chaudhary, son of Nanakram Chaudhary, Mohalla Kabari Tola Lane, resident of Patal Babu Road, P.O. + P.S. Bhagalpur, District Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Banka, District Bhagalpur. 3. Dhiro Singh, son of Satyanarayan Singh, Village Arsanda, P.S. Ghoraiaya, District Bhagalpur 4. Circle Officer, Ghoraiya, District Bhagalpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1099 of 1991 ==================================================== Shib Kumar Chaudhary, son of Nanakram Chaudhary, Mohalla Kabari Tola Lane, resident of Patal Babu Road, P.O. + P.S. Bhagalpur, District Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner/s 2
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.7127 of 1990 (6) dt.26-07-2013 2 / 5 Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Banka, District Bhagalpur. 3. Parmeshwar Singh, son of Shital Singh, resident of Village Arsanda, Circle, P.O. and P.S. Ghoraiaya, District Bhagalpur 4. Circle Officer, Ghoraiya, District Bhagalpur ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s Appearance : (In CWJC No.7126 of 1990)
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.D.Sanjay, Advocate For the Respondents1,2 &4 : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG 10 Mr. Sanjay Prasad, A.C. to AAG 10 (In CWJC No.523 of 1991) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.D.Sanjay, Advocate For the Respondents 1,2 &4 : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG 10 Mr. Sanjay Prasad, A.C. to AAG 10 (In CWJC No.1099 of 1991) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.D.Sanjay, Advocate For the Respondents 1,2 &4 : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG 10 Mr. Sanjay Prasad, A.C. to AAG 10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 6 26-07-2013 In all the above three writ petitions, common and identical questions of facts and law are involved. Therefore, with the consent of the parties, all the three matters have been taken up
Decision
together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners in all the three cases are landlords and they are aggrieved by separate orders passed by the respondent D.C.L.R., Banak in separate Batai cases filed by the respondent No.3 in each of the cases, whereby separate batai 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.7127 of 1990 (6) dt.26-07-2013 3 / 5 boards have been constituted in terms of Section 48-E (3) and (4) of The Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (in short ‘B.T.Act’) and the batai claim of respondent No.3 in each of the cases was referred to the duly constituted batai board for making its recommendations with respect to batai claim raised by the respondent No.3 over the lands under dispute. 3. All the above three writ petitions were admitted by this Court by orders dated, 4.2.1991, 27.6.1991 and 27.6.1991 respectively by a Division Bench of this Court and further proceedings in all the three batai cases filed by respective private respondents were stayed. 4. Unfortunately, despite valid service of notice contesting respondent No.3 in each of the cases, claiming to be the under-raiyats over the lands under dispute, have chosen not to appear and not to contest these writ petitions. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner of each cases submitted that the respondent D.C.L.R. has committed an error of law in directing constitution of batai boards with respect to batai claim raised on behalf of the respondent No.3 without coming to a conclusion that there is a bona fide batai dispute between the parties with respect to the lands under dispute. He further submits that in view of order of stay passed by this Court, no progress was made by the respective batai boards and the matter has remained at the stage of constitution of batai board itself. 6. After having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the state of Bihar and its functionaries, this Court finds that since the date of constitution of batai board in the year 1990 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.7127 of 1990 (6) dt.26-07-2013 4 / 5 more than 23 years have elapsed and since then many developments might have taken place with respect to the lands under dispute and further, members of batai boards may not be, now, available for certain valid reasons, but those developments have not been brought on record either by the petitioners or by the respondents. 7. Therefore, in view of long passage of time, this Court is of the opinion that the batai claim of respondent No. 3 of each of the cases should be heard and decided afresh by the respondent D.C.L.R., Banka. Whether the respondent No.3 is still bataidar over the lands under dispute, and/or whether there has been change of ownership over the lands under dispute are also required to be seen afresh by the respondent D.C.L.R., Banka before passing a fresh order for constitution of batai board in each of the cases under Section 48-E of the B.T.Act. However, after hearing the parties, if the respondent D.C.L.R. comes to a conclusion that there exists a bona fide batai dispute between the parties, then batai board is required to be constituted in each of the cases in terms of Section 48-E (3) and (4) of the B.T.Act and the matter is required to be referred to the aforesaid duly constituted batai board for making its recommendation. Thereafter, the aforesaid duly constituted batai board is required to proceed further from the stage of Section 48 E(6) of the B.T.Act and may make its recommendations in accordance with the provisions of Section 48-E of the B.T.Act and rules made thereunder. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned orders dated 12.10.1990 passed in Batai Case No. 7 of 1990 (Annexure-4 to C.W.J.C. No. 7127 of 1990) by the respondent D.C.L.R., Banka, the impugned order dated 22.5.1990 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.7127 of 1990 (6) dt.26-07-2013 5 / 5 (Annexure-4 to C.W.J.C. No. 523 of 1991) passed in Batai Case No. 9 of 1990 by the respondent D.C.L.R., and the impugned order dated 12.10.1990 (Annexure-3 to C.W.J.C. No. 1099 of 1991) passed in Batai Case No. 11 of 1990 by the respondent D.C.L.R., Banka are hereby set aside and all the three matters are remitted back to the respondent D.C.L.R., Banka for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties including respondent No. 3 in each of the cases. 9. In order to expedite the matter, petitioners of each of 3 cases are directed to appear before the respondent D.C.L.R., Banka with a certified copy of the present order within a period of six weeks from today, whereafter the respondent D.C.L.R. shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law with respect to batai claim of the respondent No.3 of each of the cases and shall pass orders, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned and by keeping in mind the observations and directions made above. 10. In the result, all the three writ petitions succeed to the extent indicated above. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)