IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14726 of 2006 DAYANAND MANDAL & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 04.08.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners are the raiyat of the lands in- question. They are aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.1999 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms in case no. 552 of 1992-93, Annexure-5 as also the appellate order dated 15.09.2004 passed by the Additional Collector, Araria in Appeal No. 26 of 1999- 2000, Annexure-6, whereunder order dated 9.10.1999 declaring Private Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as under raiyats of the lands in-question has been affirmed. The Chairman of the Board reported failure of conciliation proceeding as also the fact that on the basis of the evidence led before him by the parties it was not possible to record any positive finding about the status of land vis-à-vis the parties. The said report is dated 29.09.1993 and is contained in Annexure-1 at page-29 of the brief, perusal whereof indicates that having examined the witnesses on behalf of the land-holder as also the Private Respondents the Chairman of the Board opined that he - 2 - was unable to come to a definite finding as to whether petitioners or the Private Respondents are in possession of the lands in-question. 3. Having received the report dated 29.09.1993 the Collector under the Act undertook further enquiry as is required under Sub-Section (8) of Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 and allowed opportunity to both petitioners and the Private Respondents to examine witnesses on their behalf. The Private Respondents examined four witnesses including Respondent No.6. The petitioners herein only examined Chhedi Lal Mandal inspite of several indulgences granted under order dated 18.08.1999, 19.08.1999, 27.08.1999 and 15.09.1999 to examine further witnesses. The evidence of Chhedi Lal Mandal was not found trustworthy by the Collector under the Act who appreciating the witnesses examined on behalf of Private Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 declared them under raiyats under the impugned order dated 09.10.1999, Annexure-5 which order was appealed against and the appellate court also having considered the matter in detail, as is evident from the order dated 15.09.1994, Annexure-6 dismissed the appeal. 4. Counsel for the petitioners while prosecuting this application submitted that once the failure of - 3 - conciliation was reported by the Chairman of the Board the matter was required to have been considered on the basis of the evidence recorded before the Chairman and other witnesses should not have been examined by the Collector under the Act. He further submitted that the possession of the petitioners over the lands in-question is admitted as Jamabandi of the lands in-question have been opened in their name. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for the State I am of the view that having reported failure of conciliation the Chairman of the Board examined the witnesses on behalf of the parties and from the evidence led before him he was not in a position to certify as to which of the party namely petitioners or the Private Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 had come forward with the true and correct case. He, accordingly, reported such fact in his report dated 29.09.2003, Annexure-1. 6. Once the finding of the Chairman of the Board about the status of the parties vis-à-vis the lands in- question was not definite and clear then it was open for the Collector under the Act to have made such enquiry as was necessary to enable him to come to a definite finding about the status of the parties as regards the - 4 - lands in-question in terms of Sub-Section (8) of Section 48E of the B.T. Act and having accepted the report of the Chairman of the Board if the Collector under the Act examined other witnesses and recorded finding relying on their testimony then in my opinion he committed no error of jurisdiction and his order being already affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Collector, I am also not inclined to interfere with the same and this writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)