IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4970 of 2011 KISHOR PANDEY S/O LATE PRAKASH PANDEY @ BACHU PANDEY, R/O VILL-RAGHUNATHPUR, P.S. TURKAULIA, DIST. EAST CHAMPARAN --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BIHAR PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER LAND REFORMS, MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE COLLECTOR OF THE DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN MOTIHARI 4. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS SADAR, MOTIHARI EAST CHAMPARAN. 5. RAVINDRA SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM AYODHYA SINGH R/O VILL RAGHUNATHPUR P.S. TURKAULIA DIST. EAST CHAMPARAN. 6. LALAN SAHI S/O BAIDYANATH SAHI R/O VILL RAGHUNATHPUR P.S. TURKAULIA DIST. EAST CHAMPARAN. 7. SANGITA DEVI W/O SRI ARBIND PATHAK D/O LATE BHUNESHWAR TIWARI R/O VILL KESHARIA P.S. KESHARIA, DIST. EAST CHAMPARAN. --- RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02 16.03.2011 Heard both sides. Although a prayer in the present writ petition has been made for quashing the whole proceeding of Misc. case no. 02 of 2010, pending in the Court of respondent Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Motihari, East Champaran but learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if the State respondents is directed to dispose of the said proceeding expeditiously. It appears that respondent no.5 approached the respondent D.C.L.R. in terms of the provision contained in Section 4 of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 ( Bihar Act 4 of 2010) ( for short „Act‟). It is submitted that said matter is being adjourned without there being any compelling reasons therefor. The said authority has violated the provision 2 contained in Section 9 of the Act. It is contended that faced with lackadaisical attitude of the respondent D.C.L.R. in disposal of the proceeding expeditiously, the petitioner moved the Collector invoking his jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Act whereafter a direction was issued to the respondent D.C.L.R. to dispose of the pending proceeding within a time frame which has also elapsed. It is the stand of the petitioner that in spite of provisions contained under the Act, a direction issued by the respondent Collector in terms of Section 12 of the Act, the matter is being adjourned. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State in view of the provision contained under the Act is not able to support the continued pendency of the case before the respondent D.C.L.R. Section 4 enables a raiyat or land holder/land owner to approach the competent authority for resolution of any dispute enumerated thereunder. Relevant part of section 4 reads as under:- “4. Jurisdiction and authority to resolve disputes- (i) The Competent Authority shall have jurisdiction and authority to hear and adjudicate, on an application or complaint or on any application referred to by a prescribed Authority or officer, any issue arising out of following types of disputes:- (a) Unauthorized and unlawful dispossession of any settlee or allottee from any land or part thereof, settled with or allotted to him under any Act contained in Schedule-1 to this Act by issuance of any settlement document/parcha by a Competent Authority; (b) Restoration of possession of settled/allotted land in favour of legally entitled settlee/allottee or his 3 successors/heirs, upon adjudication of unauthorized and unlawful dispossession; ( c) Threatened dispossession of a legally entitled settlee/allottee; (d) Any of the matters enumerated in (a), (b) and ( c) above appertaining to raiyati land; (e) Partition of land holding; (f) Correction of entry made in the Records of Rights including map/ Survey map; (g) Declaration of the right of a person; (h)Boundary disputes; (i) Construction of unauthorized structure; and (j) Lis pendens transfer.” Section 9 of the Act is captioned as “Expeditious resolution of disputes”. This Court deems it apposite to quote the said provisions contained in Section 9 “9. Expeditious Resolution of Disputes- (1) The Competent Authority shall take all possible steps for expeditious resolution of disputes and shall ensure final adjudication within a maximum period of three months from the date of the institution of the case before him. (2) The Competent Authority shall not allow adjournment to the parties without sufficient cause. (3) Failure to dispose off within stipulated period without sufficient cause may call for disciplinary action against him.” A bare perusal of the order sheet of Misc. case no. 2 of 2010-11 of the Court of respondent D.C.L.R.(Annexure-3), manifests that the matter is only being adjourned. It is the stand of the petitioner before this Court that he has already appeared in the said proceeding and filed his reply/show cause. Section 9(2) of the Act mandates the Competent 4 Authority not to allow adjournment to the parties without sufficient cause. Sub Section 3 provides that failure to dispose off pending proceeding within a stipulated time without sufficient cause may call for disciplinary action against him. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and after perusing the materials on record including the provisions of the Act, this Court is satisfied that a direction be issued to the respondent D.C.L.R. for expeditious disposal of the pending proceeding being Misc. case no. 2 of 2010-11. Accordingly, the application is disposed of by the following order: Let petitioner produce a copy of the present order before the respondent D.C.L.R. within a period of 04 weeks from today whereafter the said respondent shall take steps to dispose of the said proceeding in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks therefrom. Respondent D.C.L.R. would keep in mind the provision contained in Section 9 (3) of the Act as failure on his part in expeditious disposal of the proceeding would entail initiation of departmental proceeding. Sym/ ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)