IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4417 of 2010 1. AMLENDU NARAYAN CHAUDHARY S/O LATE UPENDRA NARAYAN CHAUDHARY R/O VILLAGE - PARORA , P.O - PARORA , P.S - K. NAGAR , DISTRICT - PURNIA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MOHALLA SRI NAGAR HATA P.S - K. HAT , DISTRICT - PURNIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR PURNIA 2. BABULAL SINGH S/O LATE MAHADEO SINGH R/O VILLAGE - PARORA , P.O & P.S - K. NAGAR , REVENUE CIRCLE K. NAGAR ,DISTRICT - PURNIA 3. KAPURI SINGH S/O LATE MAHADEO SINGH R/O VILLAGE - PARORA , P.O & P.S - K. NAGAR , REVENUE CIRCLE K. NAGAR ,DISTRICT - PURNIA 4. AKALI SINGH S/O LATE MHADEO SINGH R/O VILLAGE - PARORA , P.O & P.S - K. NAGAR , REVENUE CIRCLE K. NAGAR ,DISTRICT - PURNIA ----------- 03/ 05.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State, who, in compliance of the earlier order dated 15.3.2010, has produced the records of the proceedings initiated under Section 48E of the B.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at the instance of Sharecropper Respondent second set against the petitioner, who are the raiyat of the lands in question. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that sikmi interest of the Respondent second set in the lands in question was auction sold under orders dated 20.3.1972 in the light of the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 432 of 1965 vide Rent Execution Case No. 44 of 1970 and since then till date petitioner being the purchaser has continued with the possession of the lands in question and the proceeding taken 2 under Section 48E of the Act is malicious and initiated only with a view to defeat the rightful interest of the petitioner and in appreciation of such fact, order dated 12.9.2005, Annexure-4 restraining them from ejecting Respondent second set and the appellate order dated 11.12.2009, Annexure-6 affirming the original order passed in Revenue Appeal No. 149 of 2005-06 should be set aside. In this connection, it is pointed out that from the certified copy of the report of the Chairman of the Conciliation Board, it would appear that the report was submitted on 7.1.2004 whereas from the record it would appear that the Conciliation Board itself was constituted by the D.C.L.R. under order dated 26.7.2004, as such, there could not have been any report of the Conciliation Board dated 7.1.2004. From the record, I have verified that the report of the Chairman of the Conciliation Board is dated 7.1.2005 and order preceding thereto passed by the Chairman is dated 29.12.2004. In the circumstances, the report of the Board could not have been of 7.1.2004 and there is mistake in the certified copy of the report submitted by the Chairman of the Board as before that date Board itself was not constituted. From the petition filed by Sharecropper Respondent second set, it appears that they asserted before the D.C.L.R. that delivery of possession in the light of the order dated 20.3.1972 was never effected. To verify the said contention, notice was issued by the authorities to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted 3 that the petitioner had not appeared in response to the notice issued by the D.C.L.R. for constitution of the Board as also in response to the notice issued by the Chairman of the Board, as such, the entire proceeding taken by the D.C.L.R. and the Chairman of the Conciliation Board without the benefit of assistance of the petitioner for failure to serve notice be set aside. 3. From the order of the D.C.L.R. it appears that the Chairman of the Conciliation Board had issued notice under registered cover and service of notice under registered cover is presumed to be effected unless presumption is rebutted with reference to the actual service report. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner has not produced the service report to rebut the presumption of service before me, as such, in terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act the service of notice under registered cover on the petitioner-tenant is to be accepted as valid. Even after issue and service of notice under registered cover, if the petitioner-tenant has not chosen to appear, then he has to thank himself. From the order of the D.C.L.R. dated 12.9.2005, Annexure-4, it is evident that he has considered the report of the Chairman of the Conciliation Board, which is dated 7.1.2005 and in the light of the report of the Board, he has passed the impugned order dated 12.9.2005, Annexure-4. In the circumstances, I do not see any illegality in the impugned order dated 12.9.2005, Annexure-4 whereunder Respondent second set 4 have been granted protection from ejectment from the lands in question. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to satisfy the authorities below with reference to the report of the postal authorities that he was not served with any notice of proceeding taken by the D.C.L.R. and Chairman of the Board and if the authorities are satisfied that there was no actual service then the authorities should reconsider the matter after notice to respondent second set. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)