IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2670 of 2008 WITH C.W.J.C. NO. 4834 OF 2006 GURUDEO URAON, SON OF LATE RAM CHANDRA URAON, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RADHA NAGAR, P.S.-BANMANKHI, DISTRICT-PURNIA. …………..………………………….. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS AT BANMANKHI WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF PURNIA. 3. SHRI GANGA SAH, SON OF LATE RAM BRIKSHA PRASAD SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BANMANKHI, P.S.-BANMANKHI, DISTRICT-PURNIA AND AT PRESENT VILLAGE FUREINIA BAZAR POLICE STATION-CHOUSA, DISTRICT-MADHEPURA. 4. SRI SHIV SHANKAR PRASAD GUPTA, SON OF LATE KEDAR PRASAD GUPTA RESIDENT OF BANMANKHI, P.S.-BANMANKHI, DISTRICT-PURNIA AND AT PRESENT OF MOHALLA-MADHUBANI KORAT, BARI POLICE STATION KHAJANCHI HAT DISTRICT- PURNIA. …………………………………… RESPONDENTS ----------- 3 21.1.2009 Heard, Mr. Arun Prasad Ambastha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of the facts mentioned in the application seeking restoration of CWJC No. 4834 of 2006 which has been dismissed for default as against the main contesting respondents being Respondent Nos. 3 & 4, the owners of the land against whom the petitioner had claimed bataidari right in a proceeding under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act and had lost by virtue of the impugned order in the writ application. This Court in order to find the merits in the connected writ petition had given opportunity to the 2 counsel for the petitioner to address this Court on merit so that if need be, the application can be restored against the contesting respondents no. 3 and 4. Mr. Ambastha has submitted that the impugned order passed under the provisions of Section 48E of Bihar Tenancy Act (B.T. Act) was basically unsustainable because there was already a prima-facie case established by the petitioner and therefore, the only option for the Collector under the B.T. Act was to refer the matter to the bataidari Board. He submits that the impugned order deciding the proceedings without referring the matter to the bataidari Board is in the teeth of the mandatory provision of Section 48E of B.T. Act. This Court has gone into the findings in the impugned order and other material on record and would find that the approach of the Collector under the Act in deciding the proceedings on merit was absolutely justified inasmuch as this much was well within the domain of the Collector under the Act to find out as to whether there was a prima-facie case in favour of the petitioner. If for that purpose, the Collector under the Act had looked into the materials on record and/or had discovered that the proceeding sought to be initiated was filed by the petitioner by claming such a person to be his landlord who had already died some twenty-five years 3 back in the year 1980, the reasons recorded in the impugned order for refusing to refer the matter to the bataidari Board, does not suffer from any error. Finding out such prima-facie case on the basis of the disputed materials on record is well accepted and settled position in law. Reference in this connection may be made to an order passed by the Special Bench of this Court in the case of Dhanji Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in AIR 1979 Patna 259. Once this position becomes clear that the petitioner had sought to initiate a proceeding under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act against a dead person in the year 1980 with a false and bogus claim to have apportioned crops even till the year 1992 that by itself was sufficient to reject his application at the threshold. In that view of the impugned order of the Collector under the Act dismissing the application of petitioner for bataidari right, does not suffer from any error. Thus, the prayer for restoration of such a writ petition is wholly misconceived. Consequently both the restoration application and the writ application are hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)