IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14707 of 2007 1. Jagdish Purve 2. Rajendra Purve, both sons of late Kare Purve, resident of Village- Hasanpur, P.S. Raniganj District Araria -------------- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Araria 3. The D.C.L.R. Araria 4. The Circle Officer, Raniganj, District Araria 5. Enayat Karim 6. Basarat Karim, respondent nos. 5 and 6 sons of late Fazle Karim 7. Md. Moin 8. Md. Taiyab, respondent nos. 7 and 8 sons of late Quasim Karim 9. Hafiza Khatoon wife of Md. Sakoor, all respondents nos. 5 to 9 residents of village Rampur P.S. Raniganj, District-Araria 10. Arun Kumar Singh, Son of Ram Chalitra Singh 11. Kamlesh Kumar son of Arun Singh 12. Mukund Kumar son of Arun Singh, respondent nos. 10,11, 12 resident of Village Barhara P.S. Raniganj Distt. Araria ----------- Respondents. ------------ 2. 3.3.2009 Heard Mrs. Pallavi Mishra for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.10 for respondent nos. 1 to 4. We do not feel the necessity of issuing notices to respondent nos. 5 to 12 in view of the nature of the order we are going to pass. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.2.2007 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Collector, Araria, in Bataidari Appeal Case No. 24 of 1999-2000(Jagdish Purve vrs,, Enayat Karim & Ors.), in purported exercise of powers conferred on him in terms of section 48(F) of the Bihar Tenancy Act(hereinafter referred to as the Act). A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioners claim Bataidari rights in terms of section 48(E) of the Act. He filed an application for the 2 purpose before respondent no.3, which was registered as Case No. 672 of 1996-97 (Jagdish Purve Vrs. Enayat Karim & Ors.). He constituted a Board in terms of section 48(E) of the Act. The Board examined the matter in terms of the appropriate provisions of law and submitted its report dated 23.6.1999(Annexure-4), recommending rejection of the application. On a consideration of the materials on record including the said report, respondent no.3 rejected the application by his order dated 10.8.1999 (Annexure-2). Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners preferred appeal which has been rejected by the impugned order. Hence this writ petition at the instance of the persons claiming Bataidari rights. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Board did not act in accordance with the provisions of section 48(E) of the Act. In her submission, it was the duty of the Board to make efforts for conciliation between the parties in the beginning. Instead the Board mixed up, started taking evidence as well as efforts for compromise. Furthermore, the Board took up the matter for conciliation at a belated stage and was also a half-hearted attempt. She relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Miajan Khan Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 1989 P.L.J.R. 389. Learned Government Counsel has supported the impugned order. He, inter alia, submits that the issues are concluded by concurrent findings of facts We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to me that 3 after the petitioners had filed their application claiming Bataidari rights before respondent no.3, he constituted a Board under the Chairmanship of respondent no.4. The entire order-sheet of the Board is marked Annexure-4 to the writ petition. On a perusal of the same, it appears that the Board did make an attempt for conciliation. The Board’s report states that it is a malafide attempt on the part of the petitioners to grab the lands of respondent nos. 5 to 9. The petitioners wanted to purchase the lands in question and, in view of their failure to purchase the same, they have made the present attempt. Respondent no.3 accepted the report and has concluded that the petitioners are big business men, there is no relationship of Bataidar and landlord between the parties, and have not been able to make out a prima facie case leading to rejection of the application The same has been upheld by the learned appellate authority who has held that the petitioners are the land- owners, moneyed persons, and are pursuing Bataidari claim actuated by malafide reason. He has in substance held that this is a malafide attempt on the part of the petitioners to grab the lands of respondent nos. 5 to 9. Law is sell settled that the Bataidari Board would make an attempt for conciliation between the parties which has indeed been done in this case. Furthermore, law is equally well settled that it is open to the learned first authority to examine the issue whether or not the attempt of Bataidari is bona fide, and is a malafide attempt to grab the lands to the landlord, and is equally open to him to examine whether or not the Bataidars have been able to make out a prima-facie case. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the parties 4 were alive to the legal position and have recorded the requisite findings of facts. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is inapplicable to the present facts and circumstances and inasmuch as the same dealt with the issue as to under what circumstance the first authority can withdraw the matter from the Board. In the present case, respondent no.3 did not withdraw the reference made to the Board. On the contrary, the Board examined the matter in detail and has found against the petitioners. There is no merit this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )