IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9263 of 2010 1. MD. MUDDIN @ MUDDIN MIYAN S/O LATE GANOURI MIAN R/O VILL.- BAHADURPUR, P.S.- K. HAT (O.P. MARANGA), DISTT.- PURNIA ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. D.M., PURNIA 3. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, PURNIA 4. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, PURNIA 5. BISHWANATH MAHTO S/O LATE DEVCHARAN MAHTO R/O VILL.- BAHADURPUR, P.S.- K.HAT (O.P. MARANGA), DISTT.- PURNIA 6. BASANTI DEVI W/O LATE SHIV NARAYAN R/O VILL.- BAHADURPUR, P.S.- K. HAT (O.P. MARANGA), DISTT.- PURNIA 7. JAY PRAKASH MAHTO S/O LATE SHIV NARAYAN R/O VILL.- BAHADURPUR, P.S.- K. HAT (O.P. MARANGA), DISTT.- PURNIA 8. CHINTA DEVI D/O LATE SHIV NARAYAN R/O VILL.- BAHADURPUR, P.S.- K. HAT (O.P. MARANGA), DISTT.- PURNIA 9. KANTA DEVI D/O LATE SHIV NARAYAN R/O VILL.- BAHADURPUR, P.S.- K. HAT (O.P. MARANGA), DISTT.- PURNIA 10. KUNTI DEVI D/O LATE SHIV NARAYAN R/O VILL.- BAHADURPUR, P.S.- K. HAT (O.P. MARANGA), DISTT.- PURNIA ---- RESPONDENTS For the petitioner :- Mr. Human Khan, Advocate For Respondents 5 and 7 :- Mr. Rajendra Narain, Advocate Ms. Anju Narain, Advocate For respondent State :- Ms. Shalini Raut, A.C. to G.A. 5 ----------- 2 25.6.2010 This application has been filed challenging the order dated 12.8.1998, passed in Case No. 26 of 1997-98 under Section 48(E) of the Bihar Tenancy Act and the order dated 12.6.2001, passed in Revenue Appeal No. 22 of 1998-99. The petitioner claims that he is the Bataidaar of the respondents 5 to 10. It is his case that he has his house close to the land belongs to the respondents and as such the respondents had allowed him to cultivate the land since 1986. On the basis of the aforesaid fact he claims that he is entitled to be declared as a Bataidaar. The case of the respondents is that they owned and possessed 5 Bighas of land and in fact never appointed the petitioner as a Bataidaar for the purposes of cultivating their land. It is stated 2 that they have very small piece of land and in such circumstances they were hardly in a position to give it for cultivation to a third party. In support of the case, the respondents have produced the Khatiyan, the water tax receipts and order passed in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure decided against the petitioner when he tried to disturb the possession of the respondents. The application has been dismissed in view of the fact that a prima facie case has not been made out for the purposes of establishing that the petitioner is a Bataidaar. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner moved the appellate Court which has dismissed the application on the ground that no appeal would lie in the facts of the present case. In view of the findings that prima facie the order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure passed in favour of the respondents as well as the fact that the respondents have all the documents indicating that the land is in their possession including water tax receipts and the judgment reported in AIR 1979 Patna 258 in the case of Dhanji Singh Vs. the State of Bihar, this application is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)