IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3880 of 2002 1. Maha Nand Thakur, son of Late Hari Nandan Thakur, resident of Village-Ramai, Police Station- Forbesganj, District-Araria. 2. Shyama Nand Thakur 3. Shiva Nand Thakur Both sons of Late Sada Nand Thakur, resident of Village-Belai P.S. Simraha, District-Araria. ………………..Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Additional Collector, Araria, P.S. and District-Araria. 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Forbesganj, P.S. Forbesganj, District-Araria. 4. Dhani Lal Mandal, son of Late Tunai Mandal, resident of Village- Belai, P.S. Simraha, District-Araria. ………….Respondents. ----------- 3. 22.01.09. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Respondent No.4 and State. The petitioners challenge the order dated 13. 12. 2001, in Appeal Case No. 29/1997-1998, passed by the Respondent No.2, whereby the order dated 18.10. 1997, passed by the Respondent No.3, rejecting the Bataidari claim of Respondent No. 4, vide Bataidari Case No. 225/1992-1993 (Annexure-2) was set aside It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that Respondent No. 2, while allowing the appeal vide its order dated 18. 10. 1997, committed serious illegality by not considering the relevant facts to the effect that the Reconciliation Board did not endeavour to settle the matter before final order could be passed by the Respondent No. 2. Record could reveal that the matter remained pending before the Board quite a long time and no settlement could be arrived and as such Respondent No. 3 was fully justified in calling back the record from the Board and passing the order. It is further submitted that the petitioners were not made - 2 - parties in the appeal filed by the Respondent No. 4, which has been allowed by the impugned order and as such the order deserves to be quashed. Besides that the Appellate Court also held that Respondent No. 3, while rejecting the claim of Respondent No. 4 held that one Taiyab Mian was Bataidar of the land holder as such the claim of Respondent No. 4 rejected by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that claim of Respondent No. 4 was rightly rejected by Respondent No. 3, as the Respondent No. 4, failed to establish as who is his land holder. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.4 as well as State, on the other hand, submit that petitioners are not justified to interfere in the writ proceeding by way of filing writ application as they were not objector while the matter was being heard before Respondent No. 3, in which the application filed by the Respondent No. 4 was however, rejected by order dated 18. 10.97, as contained in Annexure-2. It is further submitted that the claim of Respondent No.4 was rejected without making spot inquiry by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector himself or getting local inspection by any of the Revenue Officials, like Halka Karmachari or Circle Inspector and purely relying on the claim of Taiyab Mian, the Bataidar of the land holder as such the Collector having found that claim of Respondent No. 4, was rejected without ascertaining the fact of possession. Therefore, submission is that Respondent No. 2, rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy - 3 - Collector, rejecting the claim of Respondent No. 4. Upon considering the submissions of the parties and their respective pleadings, it appears that claim of Respondent No. 4, claimed himself to be Bataidar just has been resisted by the petitioners is disputed question of fact with regard to possession over the land in question which has to be considered and decided by the Revenue Authorities. The findings recorded by the Appellate Court that the claim of Respondent No. 4 was rejected without making local inspection by himself or getting the land in question inspected by any of the Revenue Officials. These all questions depend upon adjudication of the facts which would not be gone into in this writ application. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit of the case. However, it will be open to the parties to submit their claim before Respondent No. 3. With the above observations, this writ application is disposed of. m.p. (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)