IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.40 of 2008 Chabila Prasad Yadav, son of Late Bali Rai, resident of village- Ahirauliya Tola, Rajapur, P.S. Kotwa, District- East Champaran. ..... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Additional Collector, Motihari, District- East Champaran. 3. L.R.D.C. Sadar Motihari, District- East Champaran. 4. Manish Kumar, son of Late Surendra Prasad Singh, resident of village- Ahirauliya, P.S. Kotwa, District- East Champaran. ..... Respondents. 02- 18.3.2009 Heard Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar for the petitioner, and Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, learned assistant counsel to Additional Advocate General No.7. It arises out of proceedings under Section-48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, and is directed against the order dated 16.8.2007/12.9.2007 (Annexure-4), passed by respondent no.2, in Bataidari Appeal No. 01 of 2000-01 (Bali Rai Vs. Manish Kumar), and the analogous appeals, whereby he has rejected the application of the present petitioner, claiming bataidari rights with respect to the land in question. Respondent nos.2 and 3 have placed on record their counter affidavit and have supported the impugned order. 2 2. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the authorities have erred in law in disposing of the matter on merits without referring the dispute to the Board. In his submission once an application claiming bataidari rights is filed, it is imperative for the parties to refer the matter to the Board. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Bali Rai, the petitioner’s late father, had filed Bataidari Case No.4 of 1998-99 (Bali Rai Vs. Manish Kumar) which was rejected by order dated 11.4.2000 (Annexure-3), passed by respondent no.3, on the ground that the claimant has not raised a bona-fide claim as to the bataidari rights with respect to the land in question. Aggrieved by this order, Bali Rai preferred appeal which has been rejected by the impugned order on identical grounds. It is thus evident that both the authorities have concurrently found that the petitioner and his cohorts in collusion with each other are trying to harass the land-owner for ulterior motives, giving 3 rise to a number of applications for bataidari rights as well as criminal cases. He has, therefore, held that the applicant has not been able to set up a prima-facie case, and the entire effort on his part is actuated by ulterior motives. Law is well settled by decisions of this Court that it is open to the authorities dealing with the application under Section-48E of the Act to ensure that it is a bona-fide application and discloses a prima- facie case, failing which it is open to the authorities to refuse to refer it to the Board. Reference may be made to the judgment of this Court reported in 1981 B.B.C.J. 52 (Beuni Yadav and Another Vs. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Madhubani and others). In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be faulted. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/