MD.KHALIL v. The State of Bihar

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Collector, under the Act, is well within its power to satisfy himself with regard to the bona fide of the dispute for initiation of the proceedings and once the proceeding is initiated, the Collector, under the Act, is bound to refer the dispute to the Bataidari Board under Sub-Section (3) - 3 - of Section 48E of the Act. Reliance is upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Narayan Sharma Versus State of Bihar and Ors. Reported in 2000(3) PLJR page 187 (SC) and also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Dhunji Singh Versus State of Bihar & Ors 1979, BLJR page 711. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the proposition of law that the Collector, under the Act, can examine the application filed under Section 48E as also any documents, as well as, can make local inspection only to satisfy the prima facie case for initiation of the proceedings and cannot decide the dispute at the stage of initiation of the proceeding finally.

He further submits that by the impugned order the Collector, under the Act, has merely examined such aspects of the mater which would satisfy the identity of the land, the name of the land holder and also made local inspection in order to find out the bona fide of the application for initiation of the proceeding. The Collector, under the Act, having done so, the order refusing to initiate the proceeding as per the impugned order is legal and valid. Reliance is placed on the decision reported in 1992 (2) PLJR 747, 1991 (1) PLJR 686 and also 1978 BBCJ, 131 in support of the above. Upon considering the submissions of the parties - 4 - and upon perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, as also the impugned order dated 22.10.2001, as contained in Annexure-3, it would appear that the petitioner claims to have obtained the possession of the land in question in the year 1974 from one Ramadhar Singh who was the son of the original land holder orally and the relationship of landlord and tenant established.

The produce grown over the land were given to the landlord as per the share, however, no receipts were obtained. After partition among the landlords, the land in question fell into the share of respondent nos.- 3 to 5, however, as before no receipts were either given to him or demanded by the petitioner. The petitioner was sought to be ejected by the respondent no. 4 who claims to have purchased the land, on 8th of February 2000. Thereafter, the petitioner the aforementioned Bataidari case on 14th of February 2000. In the application under Section 48E of the Act, the petitioner mentioned the details of the land along with boundary. The notices were issued to the land holder from whom the petitioner claims to have obtained the Bataidari. Respondent no.- 6 claims to be the purchaser and he also sought to be heard by the Collector under the Act who heard the counsel for the parties, perused the documents filed by the respective parties and he also - 5 - made local inspection of the land in dispute.

It further appears that upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the documents, as well as, upon local inspection, the application under Section 48E remained pending for pretty a long time giving large number of dates for considering the application and thereafter issued notices to the land holders inviting their objection analyzing in detail respective claims and counter claims adjudicating the correctness of the Bataidari claim of the petitioner, deciding the question of misjoinder of parties. He found that application against two land holders with regard to the land in question could not be impleaded in one application. The respondent-Collector, under the Act, further dismissed the claim of the petitioner that he was being ejected by the respondent no.-6 on 8th of February 2000 and thereby dismissed the threat of ejectment. In my opinion, these details were the matters to be considered by the Bataidari Board on being referred by the Collector, under the Act, in terms of Sub-Section (3) of Section 48E of the aforesaid Act.

The Collector, under the Act, was only required to satisfy himself the prima facie case of ejectment from the land in question, as informed by the petitioner, in the application and not to decide the rival claims on merit. Respondent no.-2, The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, - 6 - by the impugned order dated 22.10.2001, as contained in Annexure-3, has dismissed the claim of the petitioner on merit instead of referring the case to the Bataidari Board, on having found that the matter is worth considering on merits he ought to have referred the dispute to the Board. The same having not been done, in my opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. As such, the order dated 22.10.2001 in Bataidari Case no. 72/1999-2000, as contained in Annexure-3, is hereby quashed and the respondent no. 2 is directed to take the necessary steps for referring the matter to the Bataidari Board in terms of Sub-Section (3) of Section 48E of the aforesaid Act expeditiously, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of the order. The writ application is accordingly allowed. No cost. JAGDISH/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J)