IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1524 of 2009 1. VIDYA NAND RAI, son of late Ganga Rai, resident of village Chak Nasiba, P.S. Fenhara, District East Champaran 2. Sripati Devi, wife of Shri Yadubir Rai, resident of village Chak Nasiba, P.S. Fenhara, District East Champaran 3. Banarasi Devi, wife of Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav, resident of village Kadma, P.S. Rajepur, District East Champaran 4. Janarsi Devi, wife of Sri Rajesh Kumar adav, resident of village Fazilpur, Tola Pakaria, P.S. Rajepur, District East Champaran … Petitioners-Appellants Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Collector, East Champaran, Motihari 3. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Pakri Dayal, East Champaran 4. Circle Officer, Madhubani, East Champaran 5. Mahendra Prasad 6. Baleshwar Prasad, both sons of late Bishun Prasad, resident of village Bakhri Nazir, P.S. Mehsi, District East Champaran 7. Surendra Prasad, son of Ruplal Mahto, resident of village Dhobaulia, P.S. Madhubani, District East Champaran … Respondents-Respondents ----------- 3. 13.5.2010 I.A.No. 7831/2009 Having heard learned counsel for the appellants as also taking into consideration the facts and circumstances mentioned herein, the delay of 186 days in filing of this appeal is hereby condoned. I.A.No. 7831/2009 is accordingly allowed. L.P.A.No. 1524/2009 Since we have condoned the delay we have also inclined to take up the appeal for its disposal at the 2 admission stage itself. In this intra-Court appeal the appellants- writ petitioners have assailed the order dated 4.9.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No. 2465/2001 dismissing their writ application, wherein the order under section 48E rejecting their claim of Bataidari and its affirmance by the appellate authority under section 48F has been dismissed. Counsel for the appellants- writ petitioners has submitted that the claim of Bataidari of an under- raiyat having been protected in terms of section 48E of the Act, the authorities were not justified in throwing such claim without constituting the Bataidari Board. In the opinion of this Court the learned Single Judge has gone into the aspects and has also minutely perused the evidence on record to find that there was complete bogus claim of Bataidari which had been put forward by the appellants- writ petitioners and therefore, the same was fit to be rejected. In this context the finding of the learned Single Judge in the impugned order reads as follows: “2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the appellate 3 order dated 10.11.2000 passed by the Collector, East Champaran, Motihari in R.A.No. 18 of 1996-97, Annexure 1, whereunder order dated 6.7.1997 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Pakridayal in Bataidari Case No. 4 of 1994- 95, Annexure 2, rejecting the claim of the petitioners alleging ejectment from the lands in question has been affirmed. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the evidence led on their behalf which is contained in Annexure 3 was not considered. Perusal of the evidence, Annexure 3, does not indicate that the witnesses ever said that the petitioners cultivate the lands in question. 4. In the circumstances, according to this Court failure to consider such evidence does not vitiate the two impugned orders as thereunder it has been held that the petitioners wanted to purchase the lands in question and on failure of the sale negotiation raised Bataidari dispute. There does not appear to be any illegality either in the original order dated 6.7.1997 (Annexure 2) passed in Bataidari Case No. 4 of 1994-95 by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Pakridayal who has accepted the report of the Bataidari Board nor in the appellate order dated 10.11.2000, Annexure 1, whereunder 4 the order dated 6.7.1997, Annexure 2, has been affirmed. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ application, which is dismissed.” The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the constitution of Bataidari Board was a mandatory requirement under section 48E of the Act is also not correct, inasmuch as the authorities under the Act have a power to examine prima facie case before constituting Bataidari Board as has been held by the Special Bench of this Court in the case of , reported in 1979 Patna . That being so, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There would be, however, no order as to costs. (Dipak Misra,C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/