IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12277 of 2010 SHUKDEO PANDIT, SON OF LATE KHARTAR PANDIT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARHARIYA, WARD NO. 8, PANDIT TOLA, P.O. BANKA, DISTRICT BANKA. -------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA, BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, DISTRICT BANKA 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, BANKA, DISTRICT BANKA 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, BANKA, DISTRICT BANKA 5. BINAY KUMAR SINHA 6. SUNIL KUMAR SINHA 7. ANIL KUMAR SINHA, ALL THREE SONS OF LATE KEDAR NATH SAHAY 8. PRAVIN KUMAR SINHA, SON OF TARINI PRASAD ALL (RESPONDENT NOS. 5, 6, 7 & 8) RESIDENT OF MOHALLA ALIGANJ, WARD NO. 3, BANKA MUNICIPAL TOWN, P.O. & P.S. BANKA, DISTRICT BANKA. --------------------------------------------------------- RESPONDENTS ******** 2 2.8.2010 The petitioner has come after a delay to challenge the order of the Collector dated 3.12.2007, who has ordered for reconstitution of the Board. Earlier a writ application was filed challenging the very maintainability of the application under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act. This Court found that since there was no declaration and exclusion of the area for the purposes of application of the Bihar Tenancy Act, the application under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act was maintainable. The matter went up before a Division Bench by filing an L.P.A. numbered as L.P.A. No. 690 of 1997 which was disposed of by this Court on 17.10.2006 upholding the order of the Single Bench. While dealing with the case, the 2 Division Bench has recorded that “the appellate authority could not remit the matter to the Chairman with a request to him to reconstitute the Board. When the appellate authority remanded the matter, it remanded the matter for reconsideration by the Board of the disputes, in as much as the real disputes were not addressed by the Board at any point of time. The appellate authority was within the four corners of the law applicable to the subject to remand the matter to the authority competent to first decide the matter and, accordingly, the same was done. However, having regard to the fact that the Board was not constituted in an appropriate manner in as much as no Panches had not been nominated by the appellants/writ petitioners a further opportunity was given to the appellants/writ-petitioners to supply the lacuna that was existing.” The appeal was dismissed. The matter was to be considered by the Board for the purposes of following the provisions under the Act and for taking steps for amicable settlement of the dispute in question. After the remand order, it would appear from the order dated 3.12.2007 some 3 intervenors have also filed an application in the matter to be heard. The status of the intervenors or the basis on which they are making their claims is not specified in the order dated 3.12.2007. In any event, it appears that the Board so constituted in the first place did not address the issue which was in question. The Collector may consider whether the Board is properly constituted in accordance with Section 48E and sub section 5 of 48E the Bihar Tenancy Act and whether it is essential to constitute a new Board in lieu to afflux of time and the appearance of a third party in this application and pass appropriate orders on receipt/production of a copy of this order. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)