IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4245 of 2005 NIAZUDDIN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 06 07.07.2008 Petitioner claimed under-raiyat rights in respect of certain lands. He accordingly filed a petition before the DCLR for declaring him to be batidar against Respondent No. 4. Upon notice being issued Respondent No. 4 appeared and took two defences. The first, that the petitioner was not the bataidar and second that the said respondent-landlord had less than 5 acres of land, other lands having already been transferred to other pursuant to compromise decree of Civil Court obtained more than about 30 years back. The learned DCLR went to a great length to give a finding that the petitioner was not a bataidar. This order was appealed against even though the appeal did not lay unsuccessfully by the bataidar and being unsuccessful before this Court. Private respondents have appeared and filed counter affidavit bringing on record that after transfer of lands pursuant to Court decree over about 30 years back now the concerned respondent whom bataidari rights were being 2 claimed was left with lands less than 5 acres and therefore in terms of Section 48 C the batai proceedings could not be taken up. He denied the fact that the petitioner was the batidar. The second plea was accepted without a finding with regard to the first appeal. Having heard the parties and directed the learned DCLR to consider the matter afresh. In particular, he would see whether on the day when petitioner’s application was made for batai what was the land holding of the respondent, under whom he had earlier claimed the right. If the land holding is less than 5 acres then the petition could ipso facto be dismissed. He would keep in mind orders of competent Civil Court and such legitimate transfers. With these observations the matter is remanded to the DCLR for a fresh consideration. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)