IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.776 of 2008 Aanandi Prasad Mandal, son of late Moti Mandal, resident of village Ismalpur, P.S. Bhawanipur Rajdham, district Purnea .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Dhamdaha, district Purnea 3. Samali Mandal, son of late Bhattu Mandal 4. Bindeshwari Mandal, son of late Bhubneshwar Mandal Both residents of village Ismalpur, P.S. Bhawanipur Rajdham, district Purnea 5. Jai Kishore Jaiswal 6. Nunnu Jaiswal Both are sons of late Jagdish Bhagat 7. Bimal Kishore Jaiswal 8. Anil Jaiswal Both are sons of Radhe Bhagat All respondents 5 to 8 are residents of village Kalashan, P.S. Chousa, district Madhepura .. Respondents **** /2/ 25.03.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner, Aanandi Prasad Mandal, claims to be the bataidar of land appertaining to khata no. 58, khesra nos. 3, 4 and 110, measuring 3.79 acres situated at mauza Lathi. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 2 25.06.2007, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhamdaha, rejecting the application for initiation of proceeding under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885, (in short, ‘the Act’) on technical ground. The technical ground as mentioned in the order is that three persons jointly filed application for initiation of proceeding under Section 48E of the Act claiming to be the bataidar without defining the area under their cultivating possession. Secondly, it is mentioned that the boundary has not been mentioned and the names are also correctly not mentioned. There is no finding on merit regarding the relationship of land lord and tenant in between the parties. 3. The counsel for the petitioner, while making submission, has stated that application under Section 48E of the Act was filed on behalf of two sons of late Moti Mandal, namely, Aanandi Prasad Mandal and Binshun Mandal and one Surendra Mandal, who is son of late Gujai Mandal, another son of late Moti Mandal. Now, Bishun Mandal is dead and Surendra Mandal is separated and left the place. Only Aanandi Prasad Mandal is in cultivating possession of land. 3 4. Considering the fact that the impugned order has not been passed on merit and also that some new developments have taken place due to which there is change in circumstance. The petitioner, if so desire, may file another application for initiating a proceeding under Section 48E of the Act. The fresh application filed by the petitioner will be considered and decided on its own merit. 5. With these observations and directions, this application is disposed off. Cp:2/S.A. ( Mridula Mishra, J. )