IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11760 of 2004 RAJENDRA KUMAR RAI & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners:- Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 5 and 6:- M/S. Durgesh Nandan, Binod Kumar Yadav & Ramnath Saran, Advocates. -------- 8. 21.07.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State as also counsel for Private Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 2. A proceeding bearing No. 75/1997-98 under Section 48 (E) of the B.T. Act was initiated at the instance of private respondent nos. 5 and 6 against the petitioners in which in absence of the parties, as is evident from order dated 10.8.1998, Conciliation Board was constituted appointing two Panches for Opposite Party Nos. 5 and 6 and one Panch, namely, Surpanch Burhiya Dhankatta for the petitioners. The conciliation proceeding could not make any headway on account of the fact that the Panches appointed for the parties were not evenly balanced. The Chairman of the Board, however, reported against the petitioners and on the basis of the report of the Chairman of the Board the proceeding was disposed of declaring Opposite Party Nos. 5 and 6 as under raiyat of the petitioners under Section 48 (E) of the B.T.Act vide order dated 4.8.1999 passed in Case No. 75/97-98, as contained in Annexure-8 to Interlocutory Application No. 2579 of 2008 against which order an appeal bearing R/A Case No. 127 of 1999 was filed before the Collector of the District which was also dismissed under orders dated 6.1.2004, Annexure-2. Present writ application has been filed assailing the two orders dated 4.8.1999 and - 2 - 6.1.2004. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the entire proceeding is vitiated on the ground that behind their back two Panches were appointed on behalf of the tenants whereas only one Panch was appointed for the petitioners and as the Panches were not evenly balanced they never met and the conciliation proceeding was never conducted and for the failure of the Chairman of the Board to conduct the conciliation proceeding his report as also the final order declaring Opposite Party Nos. 5 and 6 as tenant of the petitioners is vitiated. It is further submitted that the subject matter of the present proceeding under the B.T.Act was also the subject matter of Title Suit No. 1931 and 1932 of 1968 which was between the petitioners and the Opposite Party Nos. 5 and 6 in which Opposite Party Nos. 5 and 6 have filed compromise petition on 16th September, 1968 disowning their interest over the lands-in-question on the basis of which the aforesaid two suits were decreed in favour of the petitioners which submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is being disputed by the counsel for the Private respondent nos. 5 and 6 and from perusal of the impugned orders it does not appear that these submissions have been considered either in the original order passed by the D.C.L.R. or in the appellate order passed by the Collector of the District. In the circumstances, both the impugned orders dated 4.8.1999 as contained in Annexure 8 to Interlocutory Application No. 2579 of 2008 as also the order dated 06.01.2004 passed in R/A Case No. 127 of 1999, as contained in Annexure-2 to this application are - 3 - quashed and the matter is remitted back to the D.C.L.R., Purnea, Respondent No.-4 to reconsider the matter in the light of the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 1931 and 1932 of 1968 along with the submission of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 that some body impersonated on their behalf in filing the compromise petition dated 16.09.1968. The D.C.L.R. shall consider the certified copy of the proceedings taken in Title Suit No. 1931 and 1932 of 1968 together with the submission of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are directed to appear before the D.C.L.R., Respondent No.-4 on 8th September, 2008. 4. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this Writ application is disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)