CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5005 OF 1990 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. … Durga Prasad, son of Gorakh Prasad, village Erora, Ps Udwant Nagar, District Bhojpur at Arrah – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Arrah Sadar, Dist. Bhojpur. 3) Gurupyari Devi, wife of Sant Pratap Singh, Tari Mohalla, Pancham Tola, PS Arrah Town, Dist. Bhojpur at Arrah – Respondents. … For The Petitioner : None. For The Respondent : Mr. Suresh Kumar, A.C. to S.C. VII. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S. A. Khan, J. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 6.2.1989 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Arrah Sadar by which the petitioner’s claim that he is Bataidar of respondent no.3 has been rejected. 2. Several applications were filed under section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) with respect to the lands of one Nagina Singh. Admittedly, there was a partition and different family members of Nagina Singh came in possession of different plots of lands. The lands relating to the present dispute appertains to 5 acres 20 decimals of Khata no.34, plot no. 2175. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was in cultivating possession of the lands and the lands were managed by one Ranpal Singh, who was the Karta of the family of Nagina Singh. It is stated 2 that the petitioner’s father was in cultivating possession of the lands and he used to share crops with the landlord. It is also the petitioner’s case that he was forcibly dispossessed from the lands, at the time of harvesting of rabi crops, which led him to file Bataidari Case No. 6/1988. Other under-raiyats also filed cases. 4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms by a common order, dated 6.2.1989 has decided all the Bataidari cases. With respect to the other cases, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms has referred them to the Board for consideration under section 48E(3) of the Act. As far as the matter relating to the petitioner is concerned, the Deputy Collector has rejected the case of the petitioner on two grounds. It has been held by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms that the lands of the petitioner measure 5.20 decimals and there is no averment to show that they are irrigated in the manner as described under section 48C(i)(a) of the Act and, therefore, the lands are protected by the provisions of section 48C(i)(b) of the Act. The court has also held that respondent no. 3 is a widow and is, thus, protected by section 48C(ii) of the Act which provides that the lands within the ceiling area fixed by law, the landlord who is a widow or person suffering from illness, as defined under sub-section will have the protection of law and thereby be given the option, to defeat the provisions of section 48E of the Act due to status of being a widow or due to illness, such as, blindness, paralysis, leprosy or being a person of unsound mind. 5. On both counts i.e. having small chunk of land and 3 fact that Gurupyari Devi (respondent no. 3) is a widow, has lent support to her case and she has the protection under the law as laid down under section 48C of the Act and as such the provisions of section 48E of the Act would not be applicable in her case. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed. Patna High Court, August 19, 2010, NAFR / haque. (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)