IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6896 of 2003 SK.ALIMUDDIN @ ALIMUDDIN, S/o Late Hazi Safar Ali, Resident of village Kochbhita, P.S.- Thakurganj, District- Kishanganj ….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ajbahar Alam, S/o Fazalur Rahman, resident of village Kochbhita, P.S.- Thakurganj, District- Kishangaj 3. D.C.L.R., Kishanganj 4. Afjal S/o Jigar Ali 5. Md. Sikandar S/o Late Zainul Abidin 6. Mazibul S/o Late Zainul Abidin 7. Alimuddin S/o Late Zainul Abidin 8. Aina Khatoon D/o Late Zainul Abidin 9. Fatima Khatoon D/o Late Zainul Abidin 10. Nazma Begam D/o Late Zainul Abidin 11. Aqulima D/o Late Zainul Abidin All residents of village- Bahadurpur, P.S.- Thakurganj, District- Kishanganj. ….. Respondents For the Petitioner:- Mr. Umakant Shukla & Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, Advocates For the Respondent No.2:- Mr. S. Qaiser Hader & Mr. Syed Firoz, Advocates For the Respondent No.4 to 11:- Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate ----------- 04 07.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, respondent no.2 as well as respondent nos. 4 to 11. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.5.2003 passed in Bataidari Case No. 11/02-03 whereby the claim of respondent no.2 under Section 48 (E) of the B.T. Act, 1885 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) has been allowed (as contained in Annexure-1). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 2 the total land in dispute is measuring 3.49 acres, appertaining to plot nos. 4472 and 4473 appertaining khata no. 73. as stated in paragraph-4 of the writ petition. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the land measuring 1.82 acres of plot no. 4472 and 4473 was acquired by the petitioner by registered sale-deed dated 28.2.1978 as contained in Annexure-2. It is also contended that neither any notice was issued upon the petitioner nor was any proper procedure followed for the disposal of application filed under Section 48 (E) of the Act, as has been provided therein. It is further submitted that even the petitioner filed intervenor application, but he was did not accorded any opportunity and his case was never considered by the authorities. Lastly it is contended that once the Collector under the Act was satisfied, prima facie, with regard to existence of a bona fide dispute between the parties, it was mandatory on his part to constitute Conciliation Board as per the provisions under Sub-section 3 of the Section 48(E) of the Act. Thereafter, it was the duty of the Board concerned to issue notice upon the parties and make efforts for amicable settlement. If such amicable settlement is not reached then Board has to do local inspection and upon following the procedure laid down under the Act, it has to record its finding upon the 3 dispute and send the same to the Collector under the Act under Sub-section 7 of Section 48 (E). The Collector in its turn has to dispose of the matter either agreeing with the finding of the Board or, on dis-agreement with the same, has to record its own finding after recording reasons for such dis-agreement. The party aggrieved would have an opportunity to move in appeal provided under Section 48 (F) of the Act, against the orders passed under Sub-section 7 and Sub-section 8 of Section 48 (E). According to the petitioner, the matter was not referred to the Board in the present case. No counter affidavit has been filed by the private respondents. However, it is submitted on their behalf that no such intervenor petitioner has been filed by the petitioner. But at the same time he could not refute the factum of transfer of land in favour of the petitioner in 1978 itself and also the claim of the petitioner that mandatory procedure as provided under the Act has not been followed. State has filed counter affidavit, wherein it is admitted that intervenor petition has been filed. However, it is also stated therein that petitioner subsequently did not appear and, therefore, he may not have such claim. But even learned counsel for the State could not controvert this fact that the procedures as 4 envisaged under the various provisions of Section 48 (E), have not been followed. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is constrained to hold that the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 cannot be sustained as the mandatory provisions envisaged under Section 48 (E) have admittedly not been followed by the authorities. Once the Collector was prima facie satisfied regarding the existence of bona fide dispute, he was required to refer the matter to the “Board” where the claim of the petitioner was also required to be considered by the authorities concerned. This omission by the authority concerned is fatal. As a result, this writ application is allowed and the order as contained in Annexure-1 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Collector to decide it afresh in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that this Court has not formed opinion with regard to the merit of the cases of the parties. P.K. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)