IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12145 of 2007 Prithwi Chand Mehta S/O Late Turai Mehta, resident of Village- Madhulatta, P.S. Raniganj, Districdt-Araria ------------- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. D.C.L.R. Forbisganj, at + Post Forbishganj, District Araria. 3. D.C.L.R. Araria At + Post + District-Araria 4. Additional Collector, Araria At + Post + District-Araria. 5. Bharat Mehta 6. Bhaskar Mehta, both sons of late Ugra Narayan Mehta 7. Indra Narayan Mehta S/O late Hari Pd.Mehta 8. Laxmi Narayan Mehta S/O Late Hari Pd. Mehta 9. Mahindra Mehta alias Mani Mehta S/O Late Hari Pd. Mehta 10. Ajay Mehta S/O Late Hari Pd. Mehta 11. Raj Narayan Mehta S/O Late Bhujdeo Mehta 12. Jai Prakash Mehta S/O Late Bhujdeo Mehta 13. Uma Kant Mehta S/O Late Bhujdeo Mehta 14. Om Prakash Mehta S/O late Bhujdeo Mehta 15. Most. Gulma Devi wife of late Bhujdeo Mehta 16. Most. Ragia Devi wife of late Ugra Narayahn Mehta, respondent nos. 4 to 16 resident of Village Mirzapur, Post Office Mirjapur, P.S. Renugaon(Sumraha) District Araria ---- Respondents. --------- 2. 19.2.2009 Heard Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta for the petitioner, and Mr. Ritesh Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.2.2007 (Annexure-2), passed by the learned Additional Collector, Araria, in Case No. 18 of 2003-04 (Prithibi Chand Mehta Vrs. Ugra Narayan Mehta & Ors.), whereby he has rejected the appeal preferred by the present petitioner under the provisions of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Respondent nos. 1 to 4 have placed on record their counter affidavits. It appears that the petitioner has earlier filed an application under section 48(E) of the Act which was registered as Case No.262 of 1976-77 (Prithibi Chand Mehta Vrs. Hari Prasad Mehta) for declaration of Kayami rights with respect to the following 2 lands:- Khata No. Khesra No. Area 450 1533 0.41 acre 443 1534 0.34 acre 1541 1.00 acre 443 1542 2.20 acre 1543 0.17 acre 2030 0.22 acre 448 1547 0. 63 acre -------------- Total 4.97 acres. The application was rejected for non-prosecution by order dated 15.12.1976, passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Araria. The petitioner thereafter preferred a fresh application which was registered as Case No.10 of 2003-04 (Prithibi Chand Mehta Vrs. Hari Prasad Mehta). The same was rejected by order dated 2.5.2003, stating therein that the petitioner has not produced any evidence in support of his case and he has not been able to make out a prima facie case to proceed further in the matter. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred appeal which has been rejected by the impugned order, and said order dated 8.10.2003 (Annexure-1) has been upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises a grievance before this Court that the authority under the Act has not followed the mandatory provisions of law engrafted in section 48(E) of the Act, and the Board was also not constituted. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. I do not feel necessity to referring to the order dated 15.12.1976 (Annexure-3), for the reason that the petitioner’s subsequent application under the same provisions of law has been considered on merits by both the authorities. The learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector has held in 3 his order dated 8.10.2003 that the petitioner has not produced any material at all in an effort to make out a prima facie case to proceed further in the matter. This has been upheld by the learned appellate authority by his impugned order. Law is sell settled that in a proceeding under section 48(E) of the Act, the applicant is required to make out a prima facie case to proceed further in the matter. Admission of the case is not automatic. It is open to the learned first authority to reject application under section 48(E) of the Act on various grounds i.e. failure to make out a prima facie case, the application is actuated with malafide etc. in which case the Board may not be constituted. In view of the discussion in the impugned order, the impugned order can not be faulted. The writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )