CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6662 OF 1991 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. MD. AZIMUDDIN, SON OF MD. GARBHU, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAK PARORA, P.S. KRITYANAND NAGAR, DISTRICT PURNEA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, PURNEA 3. THE D.C.L.R., SADAR, PURNEA 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, KRITYANAND NAGAR, PURNEA 5. SMT. LILA DEVI, WIFE OF SRI RAMNI RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DAYALPUR, P.S. BIHPUR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR AT PRESENT RESIDING AT PARORA, P.S. KRITYANAND NAGAR, DISTRICT PURNEA. 6. SHEKH TAHIR, SON OF MIRJA RIYASAT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAK PARORA, P.S. KRITYANAND NAGAR, DISTRICT PURNEA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESPONDENTS For The Petitioner : MR. MADHUSUDAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE For The RespondentS : NONE P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. An application has been filed by Md. Shekh Tahir claiming the Bataidaar rights under Section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act over the lands in question. The petitioner appeared and filed his intervention application. The intervention application of the petitioner was allowed on the ground that he had already 2 been declared as a Bataidaar on the land in question vide Case No. 335 of 1979-80 on 5.8.1980. The only question that was raised in this case is whether the intervener petitioner had any right to use and cut the trees on the land in question. Both the Courts have found that the trees were planted by the landlord. This finding remains unassailed by the petitioner. 3. Taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, the Courts have held that Section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act provides the right of occupancy to the under raiyat with respect to trees and bamboos has now been substituted by Bihar Tenancy Amendment Act, 1986 which deprives under raiyat of any right over the trees. Therefore, the findings of both the Courts concur on this issue and the petitioner’s application has been dismissed on this ground. 4. I do not find any illegality in the order of the Courts below. This application is, thus, dismissed. Patna High Court, 2nd of November, 2010 N.A.F.R./Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)