IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8200 of 2001 KAMDEO PRASAD MAHTO & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 05. 10.09.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Perused the impugned order dated 15.2.2001, Annexure-4 whereunder the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar Purnia having considered the case as set out in the application dated 16.7.1999, Annexure-1 as also reply thereto filed by the land holder dated 13.4.2000, Annexure-2 has recorded a finding that the petitioners failed to make out a prima facie case for initiating a proceeding under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as no material at all was placed in the petition on the basis of which petitioners could make out a prima facie case that they are the Bataidars of the lands in question and are being threatened to be ejected from the lands in question. 3. Perusal of the petition dated 16.7.1999, Annexure-1 only indicates a bald statement on behalf of the petitioners that they are the Bataidars of the lands in question as their father Mishri Lal Mahto was recorded as Sikmidar of the part of the lands in question who died in the year 1978 and after his death petitioners are cultivating the lands as Bataidar. Perusal of the petition, however, does not indicate that any other raiyat of the adjoining land had ever seen the petitioners cultivating the lands in question. Petition also does not indicate the names of the person in whose presence threat of ejectment was extended to the petitioners. In absence of such statement/material, I - 2 - am of the view that no material worth any consideration was made/placed on record which could persuade the Collector under the Act to be satisfied about existence of prima facie case of ejectment from the lands in question and to initiate a proceeding and when the Collector under the Act has not chosen to exercise his discretion in favour of the petitioners this court is not inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 15.2.2001, Annexure-4 and this writ application is, accordingly dismissed. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Sukhdeo Paswan & Ors. Versus The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1993(2) PLJR 211 (DB). Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that mere statement of the Bataidar should be accepted as a proof of bonafide claim, this Court regrets not to accept such submission in absence of materials making out a bonafide claim of ejectment. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)