IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12840 of 2001 ASHOK KUMAR PASWAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 19.09.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the private respondent no. 4, although he has been served with the notice of these proceedings. 2. Petitioner and the private respondent no.4 are the purchasers of 97, 41 decimals of land respectively from the three sons of Lochan Singh, the recorded tenant, namely, Thakur Satya Narayan singh, Thakur Shri Bhagwan Singh and Thakur Shri Nath Singh under three sale deeds dated 2.11.1977. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.2.1988 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar Purnia, Respondent No.3 in Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) Case No. 75 of 1986-87, Annexure-7 whereunder private respondent no. 4 in view of the report of the Chairman of the Bataidari Board has been declared as Bataidar of the lands in question. He is further aggrieved by the order dated 7.8.2001 passed by the Additional Collector, Purnia in Revenue Appeal No. 04 of 1999-2000, Annexure-8 whereunder appeal filed against the order dated 1.2.1988 has been rejected on the ground that the same is not maintainable. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the aforesaid two orders dated, 1.2.1988 and 7.8.2001, Annexures-7 and 8 on the ground that the initiation of proceeding under Section 48E of the Act against the petitioner as also its conduction by the Conciliation Board was contrary to the provisions contained in the Act as Bataidari claim over the lands in - 2 - question between private respondent no.4 and the three sons of recorded tenant, namely the vendor of the petitioner and private respondent no.4 was considered Vide B.T. Act Case No. 421 of 1976-77 and after thorough enquiry by the Bataidari Board it was held that the private respondent no.4 had no connection with the lands in question and the Bataidari Case No. 421 of 1976-77 was dismissed. Later the petitioner and the private respondent no.4 purchased 97, 41 decimals of land respectively under three sale deeds dated 2.11.1977 and as private respondent no.4 was interested in purchasing more lands but his request could not be considered by the vendor, he became aggrieved and filed a petition for initiating the present Bataidari dispute, which was entertained and the Collector under the Act straightway proceeded to appoint Chairman of the Board without calling for the names of the Panches from the parties and instructed the Chairman of the Board to call for the names of the Panches from the parties and to seek his approval, which instruction was wholly contrary to the provisions contained in Sub-Sections(4)and (5) of Section 48E of the Act. 4. It is further submitted that the Chairman of the Board without seeking confirmation over the appointment of the Panches, proceeded with the adjudication of the dispute and in the process neither the Board nor the Panches ever attempted to conciliate the dispute between the parties, which is mandatory under Sub-Section(6) of Section 48E of the Act. It is also submitted that the Chairman of the Board did not even permit the petitioner to examine witnesses and proceeded to submit the report. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms having received the - 3 - report proceeded to accept the same under the impugned order dated 1.2.1988, Annexure-1 without giving opportunity to the parties to contest the report. 5. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 1.2.1988 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms is violative of the provisions contained in Sub-Sections (5) to (7) of Section 48E of the Act and the appellate order dated 7.8.2001, Annexure-8 is assailed on the ground that the Additional Collector ignoring the provisions contained in Section 48F of the Act held that the appeal is not maintainable and did not consider the validity of the impugned order dated 1.2.1988 that the same was violative of the provisions contained in Sub-Sections (5) to (7) of Section 48E of the Act. 6. In spite of notice, private respondent no.4 has not chosen to appear in these proceeding and to file counter affidavit disputing the aforesaid contentions, in the circumstances, the submissions set out in the writ application and urged before this Court are accepted and in view of the submissions urged, this Court has no option but to set aside the order dated 1.2.1988, Annexure-7 as violative of the provisions contained in Sub-Sections (5) to (7) of Section 48E of the Act and the appellate order dated 7.8.2001, Annexure-8 as violative of the provisions contained in Section 48F of the Act and, accordingly, both the orders are set aside. 7. This writ application is, accordingly disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha,J.)