IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12555 of 2007 Md. Suleman, son of late Bars Ali, resident of village- Khuti Dhanauli, P.S.- K. Nagar, District- Purnia. .... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The D.C.L.R., Purnia. 3. Smt. Pramila Ramajee wife of late Kumar Parmodanand Singh. 4. Mada Nand Jha 5. Bhuvan Jha Both sons of late Krishna Nand Jha, residents of village and P.O.- Kakraul, P.S. Raika, District 6. Rani Jha, daughter of Suresh Jha, resident of village- Sri P.S. Pratapganj, District- Supaul. ... Respondents. ----------- 02- 24.02.2009 Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar Agrawal for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.8.2006 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar Purnia, in Case Nos.91 of 2003-04, and 92 of 2003-04 (Md. Suleman Vs. Smt. Pramila Ramaji and others), whereby he has In Limine rejected the applications of the present petitioner under section-48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises a grievance before this Court that, in 2 view of the provisions of Section-48E of the Act, it is enjoined on the learned L.R.D.C. to constitute a Board and dispose of the matter on merits. He relies on a Full Bench judgment of this Court, reported in A.I.R.1979, Patna 259 (Dhanji Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others). 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The learned L.R.D.C. has recorded the following observations in the impugned order: “...vc oknh dh ea’kk ekyfdu dh iwjh tehu gM+ius dh gS...” “ mHk; i{k ds fonoku vf/koDrkvks~ dks lquus vksj dkxtkrksa dk voyksdu djus ds okn ;g U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprh gS fd oknh nokjk nk;j ;g eqdnek eux<+ar vkSj cnfu;fr ls xzLr gS@ fcYdqy gh cksukQkbM ugha gS vkSj tehu gM+ius dh fu;r ls nk;j fd;k x;k gS@ blfy, ;g okn izfrf"V ds fcUnq ij gh [kkjht fd;k tkrk gS@ Law is well settled that the learned first authority is entitled to ensure that the applicant claiming rights as under- raiyat has a prima-facie case for consideration and is not actuated by mala-fides. If not, he may decline to constitute the Board and refuse to proceed further in the matter. He has also observed in the impugned order that the petitioner has never 3 been a Bataidar and has been the sepoy of the land-holder. In view of the legal position and in view of the findings recorded by the learned L.R.D.C., it is not possible for this Court to disagree with the impugned order. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/