IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7393 of 2002 JIYA LAL DAS S/O- LATE KHELABAN DAS, R/O- VILLAGE – BAGHAHI TOLA, P.O.- PARTAPUR, P.S.- BELSAND RUNNISAIDPUR, DISTRICT - SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DCLR, SITAMARHI, SADAR, DISTRICT SITAMARHI 3. RAMBALI DAS S/O- LATE JANKI DAS, R/O- VILLAGE AND P.O.- PARTAPPUR, P.S.- RUNNISAIDPUR, DISTRICT - SITAMARHI For the Petitioner :- Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent no. 3 :- Mr. Avinash Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Anwar Karim, AC to SC - V ----------- 3. 27.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and also learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.-3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no.2 has passed the order under Section 48(e) of the Bihar Tenancy Act vide order dated 23.05.2002 in Bataidari Case No. 112 of 1996-97, as contained in Annexure-1 in a mechanical manner without considering the documents filed by the respondent no.-3 in support of the claim of Bataidari over the land in question. The respondent no. 2 has simply taken note of the application bearing the signature of five persons as well as the application of - 2 - the Mukhia and the ward member, however, without discussing those documents in support of the order that the claim of the respondent no.3 is rightly allowed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 supports the order and submitted that his claim for bataidari was rightly accepted as he was cultivating the land for about 30 years. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and respective pleadings, it appears that respondent no.2 while passing the order has not given a finding with regard to the period of possession over the land in question as claimed by the respondent no.3. Subsequently, it also appears that the application filed by the respondent no. 3 bearing the signature of some of the witnesses as well as the application of the concerned Mukhiya and ward member is sufficient to prove the Bataidari claim of the respondent no.-3 does not stand to reason in absence of any discussion or considering of those documents which found basis for allowing the claim of the respondent no.3. In my opinion, such order cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the impunged order dated 23.05.2002 as contained in Annexure-1 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to respondent no.2 for passing the order afresh in accordance with law after - 3 - hearing both the parties expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order. The status quo with respect to the possession of the land in question shall be maintained till passing of the fresh order by the respondent no. 2. Accordingly, the application is disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J)