IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8993 of 2001 BISHO PASWAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Bishnu Deo Narayan, Advocate. For Private Respondent No.4 : Mr. Amrendra Nath Vema, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, Advocate. 4. 11.09.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the counsel for Private Respondent No.4. None appears for Private Respondent No.5. 2. Petitioner, the under raiyat is aggrieved by the order dated 29.8.2000 passed by the Collector, Khagaria in Bataidari Appeal Case No. 06 of 1997-98, Annexure-6 whereunder learned Collector set aside the order dated 23.8.1997 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gogri, Khagaria declaring the petitioner as Bataidar of the lands in question as also prevented his ejection therefrom. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that having set aside the order passed by the Collector under the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) the appellate authority should have asked the Collector under the Act to constitute a fresh Board with liberty to the raiyat and the under raiyat to nominate their panches but the appellate court has not given such direction and for such failure the impugned order dated 29.8.2000, Annexure-6 is fit to be set aside. 3. Counsel for the Private Respondent No.4, the raiyat accepts the position that while setting aside the original order the appellate court has not asked the Collector under the Act to re- - 2 - constitute the Board and in this connection he even referred to the earlier order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms dated 10.9.1996, Annexure-3 whereunder for the failure of the transferor of the private respondents to nominate his panch, the Circle Officer was directed to nominate the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat concerned as the Panch of Private Respondent No. 5 but it is submitted that the earlier proceedings were conducted by the Board without the benefit of any representative on behalf of private respondents. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties, I set aside the order dated 29.8.2000, Annexure-6 and remit the matter back to the Collector under the Act i.e. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gogri with direction to constitute a fresh Conciliation Board with Circle Officer as the Chairman of the Board and the writ petitioner as also the Private Respondent No. 4 are directed to nominate two panches on their behalf whereafter the Conciliation Board should conduct its proceeding and submit report as early as possible, in any case, within a period of six months from the date of nomination of the panches. Before passing such order, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms shall also call upon Respondent No.5 to nominate his panch as it is submitted that part of the lands in question is still owned by him. 5. This writ application is, accordingly disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)