IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17066 of 2007 1. MR.PHULESHWAR MANDAL , S/o Late Phagu Mandal, R/o Village –Pirankar, PS Dhamdaha, Distt. Purnea 2. Mr. Shankar Mandal S/o Late Phagu Mandal, r/o Village – Pirankar, PS Dhamdaha, Distt. Purnea 3. Mr. Jagdish Mandal S/o Late Phagu Mandal, R/o Village – Pirankar, PS Dhamdaha, Distt. Purnea ……..Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Deptt. of Revenue & Land Reforms,Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 2. The Collector, Collectorate, Patna 3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Damdaha, Purnia 4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Damdaha, Purnia 5. Mr. Raghunath Mandal S/o Late Jagarnath Mandal, Vill. Ajma Tin Tanga Gopalpur, Distt. Bhagalpur 6. Mr. Mahendra Mandal S/o Late Jangali Mandal, Village – Ajma Tin Tanga (Bhim Das Tola), Gopalpur, District Bhagalpur 7. Mr. Mathura Mandal S/o Bangali Mandal, Village – Ajma Tin Tanga (Bhim Das Tola), Gopalpur, Distt. Bhagalpur 8. Mr. Parsuram Mandal, S/o Bacchi Mandal, Village Ajma Tin Tanga (Bhim Das Tola), Gopalpur, District Bhagalpur 9. Mr. Balram Mandal, S/o Bacchi Mandal, Village Ajma Tin Tanga (Bhim Das Tola), Gopalpur, District Bhagalpur 10. Hari Mandal, S/o Late Lalji Mandal, Village – Ajma Tin Tanga (Bhim Das Tola),Gopalpur,District Bhagalpur 11. Mr. Anandi Mandal S/o Late Bhagwan Mandal, R/o Village – Singhiyan, PO & PS Bhawanipur, Distt. Purnia ……. Respondents ----------- 02- 17.3.2009 Heard Mr. Binay Krishna Shukla for the petitioners, and learned AC to Standing Counsel 21. This writ petition is directed against the oder dated 24.7.07/31.7.2007 (Annexure 1), passed by respondent no.3 in Case No.25/2006-07 (Phuleshwar Mandal vs. Raghunath Mandal), whereby he has rejected the application preferred by the present petitioners under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act - 2 - at the threshold without feeling the necessity of referring the dispute to the Board. 2. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned suffers from serious infirmities. The petitioners’ application has been rejected, inter alia, on the ground that identical application filed by the petitioners’ father was dismissed for non-prosecution. In his submission, the second ground is equally untenable whereby he has found that the petitioners have not been able to make out a Prima Facie case for its reference to the Board. He has relied on the following reported judgments :- (i) 1979 PLJR 82 (Lakshmi Prasad vs. State of Bihar) (ii) 1979 PLJR 247 (Dhanji Singh vs. State of Bihar) According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the two judgments lay down to the effect that once an application under Section 48E is filed, the same has to be referred to the Board for conciliation and report. 3. Learned government counsel has supported the impugned order. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We do not feel the necessity of deciding the first question because the writ petition can be disposed of by dealing with the second question alone. The previous application preferred by the petitioners’ late father was rejected because, after his demise, the petitioner had gone over to Punjab to - 3 - earn his bread. He was, therefore, not in possession of the land after the father’s demise. It is thus evident that the petitioner has not been able to make out a cause of continuous possession in terms of Section 48E of the Act. Law is well settled that it is open to the authorities under Section 48E of the Act to reject an application if the petitioner cannot make out a prima facie case. The impugned order cannot be faulted. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) mrl