IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19960 of 2010 MOST.SUMITRA DEVI WIDOW OF LATE SHITAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-JAWAHARNAGAR DAINI, P.S.-KRITYANAND NAGAR, PURNIA. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ------- For the petitioner: Mr.Arun Prasad Ambastha,Advocate. For the State : Mr.Baidyanath Thakur,A.C. to S.C.18. 2 14.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Present is an application seeking quashment of the order initiating a proceeding under section 48 of Bihar Tenancy Act including order passed therein by the respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms whereby on being prima facie satisfied the matter has been referred to the Conciliation Board in terms of the provision of the Act. According to the writ petitioner, land situated at Mauza – Barahkona, Thana No.- 125, P.S.- Mirganj, Anchal- Dhamdaha, District – Purnia appertaining to Khata No.163, Plot No.2181 measuring an area 91 decimals ( out of total area of 94 decimals) is the subject matter of the proceeding under the provisions of B.T. Act. (for short ‘the Act’). She claims the lands being the daughter of one Kali Prasad Mahto in whose name records of right were created. She further claims that in a partition suit ( Title Suit No.305 of 2 1971) the land in question along with some other lands were allotted to the share of the petitioner on a compromise arrived at between the parties to the said suit. It is further stand of the petitioner that she is in continuous possession of the lands in question after getting her name mutated with respect to the same in revenue record. Respondent no.3 filed an application under section 48E of the Act seeking a declaration that he is ‘bataidar’ on the lands in question which gave rise to Bihar Tenancy Act Case No.110 of 2009-10 ( Dhuri Mahaldar vs. Kameshwar Mahto). In the said proceeding one Kameshwar Mahto was impleaded as the land holder. By order dated 14.11.2009 the respondent Deputy Collector on a consideration of the materials placed before it directed for issuance of notice. Whereafter aforesaid Kameshwar Mahto appeared in the proceeding and filed an application stating therein that the lands in question did not belong to him. The same was the land of the writ petitioner. However, this factum is not manifest from the ordersheet of the respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms (Annexure-5). It further appears that on 6.7.2010 a spot verification was made in which it was found that the claim of the respondent no.3, applicant/ bataidar in respect of plot no.2191 was not found 3 sustainable. However, the authorities concerned having prima facie satisfied with the claim as to the Plot No.2181 measuring an area 00.91 decimals directed for a reference of the matter to the Conciliation Board for proceeding in accordance with Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the recorded tenant and land owner in respect of the aforesaid land appertaining to khata no.163 , khesra no.2181 and as such without affording any opportunity by issuing notice to her the proceeding has been initiated and is being continued. From the materials on record including the impugned orders placed at Annexure-5 this much is evident that the proceeding initiated at the instance of respondent no.3 is at its initial stage. If the petitioner is permitted to file an appropriate application in the aforesaid proceeding claiming herself to be the land owner/holder in respect of the lands in question then the grievance of the petitioner shall stand satisfied. This will also be in the interest of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that admittedly spot verification, if any, was made behind her back and the satisfaction of the court / findings 4 was recorded under order dated 6.7.2010 (part of the impugned order, Annexure-5). Having heard the parties and after going through the materials available on record this Court is of the view that in the interest of Justice the petitioner is required to be given an opportunity to appear in the said proceeding (Case No.110 of 2009-10) pending before the respondent Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Dhamdaha. Submission of the petitioner that the findings recorded in order dated 6.7.2010 was admittedly made/recorded behind her back and may cause prejudice to her has some legs to stand. Accordingly, the present application is being disposed of by the following order. Order dated 6.7.2010 passed by the respondent Deputy Collector in Case No.110 of 2009-10 is quashed. The petitioner shall appear before the said respondent authority within five weeks from today and file her objection/show cause along with a copy of this order before the said respondent. The respondent DCLR shall thereafter hear the parties and proceed to dispose of the proceeding in accordance with law. Anilkr.sinha (Kishore K.Mandal,J.) 5