IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.581 of 2009 1. KRISHNA KUMAR CHOUDHRY SON OF LATE MUNSI CHOUDHARY 2. CHANDRA SHEKHAR CHOUDHAR SON OF HARIS CHANDRA CHOUDHARY 3. PREM SHEKHAR CHOUDHARY SON OF HARIS CHANDRA CHOUDHARY 4. SHASHI SHEKHAR CHOUDHARY SON OF HARIS CHANDRA CHOUDHARY ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAJHA, P.S.- K. NAGAR, DISTRICT- PURNEA ……………………………………..APPELLANTS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, PURNEA 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, PURNEA 4. UDAI RISHI SON OF PRAYAG RISHI ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KHJHA, KOTHI, P.S.- K. NAGAR, DISTRICT- PURNEA ……………….RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Appellants :- Mr. Hare Krishna Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents :- Mr. Arun Prasad Ambastta, Advocate For the State :- AC to AAG-8 ----------------- 5 10/12/2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The writ court while dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellants who are the landlords found that the claim of Bataidari preferred by the respondents as per provisions of Section 48 E of the Bihar Tenancy Act had to be decided in absence of the appellants at all stages because they chose not to appear in spite of notice. Even at the fag end of the case when after recalling the proceeding from the Board in exercise of his power under sub Section (10) of Section 48 A of the Act the Collector was deciding the dispute himself, the 2 appellant no. 1 appeared on notice, took time to produce evidence but again, thereafter, failed to appear and take part in the proceeding. The submission advanced before us is that the Bataidari Board did not act as per law and did not make endeavour for conciliation between the parties. The facts noticed by the writ court and appearing in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent, particularly the various dates and non- appearance of the appellants makes it clear that in spite of being aware of the Bataidari Proceeding, the appellants avoided to appear and their entire attempt was to cause as much delay as possible. Even when they were given opportunity at the end to lead evidence, they avoided to avail the opportunity. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are in agreement with the views of the writ court that the order passed by the competent authority in favour of the Bataidar requires no interference. We find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) avin