IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15170 of 2001 ANANT LAL SOREN & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners :Mr. Kumar Uday Singh, Advocate For Respondents 3 & 4:M/s Arun Pd. Ambastha & Ravindra Kr. Choudhary, Advocates 04/ 26.9.2008 A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent no.3, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the private Respondent nos. 3 and 4 at length. 3. Petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated 27/30.8.1999, passed in Bataidari Case Nos. 19, 21 of 1999 and 1 of 2000, as contained in Annexure-3 series to this writ application, whereunder their request to initiate a proceeding under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was rejected. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that without appreciating the contents of the petitions dated 25.8.1999, 3.12.1999 and 14.1.2000, aforesaid orders dated 27/30.8.1999 has been passed on the basis of materials which ought to have been considered by the Bataidari Board and not by the Collector under the Act at the time of passing the impugned order. 5. Aforesaid submission of the petitioners was examined in the light of the averments made in the petitions 2 dated 25.8.1999, 3.12.1999 and 14.1.2000 and this Court is of the view that the relevant facts to establish that the petitioners cultivated the lands in question as Bataidars as also they were threatened with ejectment by the private Respondents, have not been pleaded in the petitions giving materials/ particulars as neither the names of the raiyats , who had seen the petitioners cultivating the lands in question, have been given in the petitions nor the names of the persons before whom the threat was extended to the petitioners have been indicated. In the circumstances, I am of the view that petitioners while filing the aforesaid three petitions did not furnish the relevant materials on the basis of which Collector under the Act could have formed an opinion that there exist a dispute between the parties which is required to be resolved by initiating a proceeding under Section 48E of the Act. 6. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file another petition with complete information to indicate that they have been cultivating the lands in question as Bataidars as also were threatened by the private Respondents with ejectment and if such petition is filed, the Collector under the Act shall examine the same in accordance with law without being prejudiced by his earlier orders dated 27/30.8.1999, Annexure-3 series. 7. It is open for the Raiyat, the private Respondents to inform the Collector under the Act that the lands in question 3 were the subject matter of the earlier three Bataidari Proceedings and those proceedings were dismissed under different orders. The raiyat is also permitted to place on record even other documents to suggest that the claim of the Bataidars is frivolous. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)