IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10205 of 2010 1. KRISHNADEO SINGH, S/O LATE BISHWANATH SINGH, R/O VILLAGE CHANDU DEHRA, P.S. ITARHI, DISTRICT- BUXAR. 2. KAPIL RAJAK, S/O LATE SHEOPUJAN RAJAK, R/O VILLAGE CHANDU DEHRA, P.S. ITARHI, DISTRICT- BUXAR. 3. NATA PASWAN, S/O LATE RAJARAM PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE CHANDU DEHRA, P.S. ITARHI, DISTRICT- BUXAR. 4. SUKUL PASWAN, S/O LATE SITARAM PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE CHANDU DEHRA, P.S. ITARHI, DISTRICT- BUXAR. 5. LALAN PASWAN, S/O LATE HARISHARAN PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE CHANDU DEHRA, P.S. ITARHI, DISTRICT- BUXAR. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BUXAR. 3. THE D.C.L.R., BUXAR, HAVING HIS OFFICE AT BUXAR, P.S. BUXAR, DISTRICT-BUXAR. 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, ITARHI, P.S. ITARHI, DISTRICT-BUXAR. 5. THE DIETY OF THAKUR JEE,BHARAKHARA, THROUGH ITS MAHANAT SHRI CHANDRAMA DAS, CHELA OF SHRI RAM LAKHAN DAS OF THAKUR JEE MATH, SITUATED AT VILLAGE BHARAKHARA, P.S. RAJPUR (DHANSOI), DISTRICT-BUXAR. ******** FOR THE PETITIONERS :- MR. R. K. P. SINGH, ADVOCATE MR. MANISH KISHORE, ADVOCATE MR. BAL BHUSHAN CHOUDHARY, ADVOCATE ********* 2 05/07/2010 Ordinarily, this Court would have issued notice to respondent no. 5 in this matter but considering that respondent no. 5 was aware of the orders of this Court, which will be referred to hereinafter, no useful purpose will be served by issuing notice as it would only delayed the matter further. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.04.2010 by which the Collector, Buxar has refused to entertain the application under Section 48 F of the Bihar Tenancy Act on the ground that there has been a delay in filing the appeal. The facts reveal that the petitioners had moved 2 against the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms dated 22.11.2000 by which the Deputy Collector Land Reforms deferred from the recommendations of the Board constituted under Section 48 E of the Bihar Tenancy Act. The Single Judge as well as the Division Bench has held that the remedy available to the petitioners was to file an appeal under Section 48 F of the Act. The Division Bench was aware of the fact that the matter had remained pending in this Court for eight years, yet held that the remedy for the petitioners was to file an appeal under Section 48 F of the Act. If the Single Judge and the Division Bench had held that the appeal is barred by virtue of the fact that this matter had become stale, the Courts would have expressed their views. The very fact that the Court had observed that the only efficacious remedy available to the petitioners is under Section 48 F of the Act, it would have been proper that the Collector after noticing the other side should have considered the merits of the case in stead of rejecting it on the ground that it is time barred. The petitioners have also filed an application for condonation of delay in which it has been stated that the petitioners were pursuing the legal remedy before the High Court. This is a good ground for condonation of delay. The Collector would be at liberty to impose cost and condone the delay and thereafter hear the case on its own merits. Since, there has been delay for one reason or the other, the Collector 3 should try and disposed of the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the result, this application is allowed and the order contained in Annexure-8 dated 16.04.2010 passed in Suit No. 192 of 2008 (Bataidari) is hereby quashed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )