IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.521 of 2004 BHAIRAV PRASAD MEHTA son of Late Basudeo Mehta, Resident of village Gokhulpur, Police Station Krityanand Nagar, District Purnia. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms at Sadar, Purnia. 3. Shri Sadanand Mehta. 4. Shri Surendra Mehta. 5. Shri Upendra Mehta. Sons of Late Sant Lal Mehta. 6. Shri Bharat Bhushan Mehta. 7. Shri Indra Bhushan Mehta. 8. Shri Shashi Bhushan Mehta. Sons of Late Dinesh Mehta. Nos. 3 to 8 residents of Village Gokhulpur, Police Station Krityanand Nagar, District Purnia. ----------- 8 19.11.2010 The present appeal arises out of the order dated 9.3.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.10815 of 2003. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an order was passed on 9.6.2003 (Annexure-3 to the writ application) by the Collector under the Act whereby the proceedings under section 48 E of the Bihar Tenancy Act has been dropped to the detriment of the present appellant. It has been contented that the learned Single Judge has erred in observing that the proviso of Section 48 E would be only applicable when the nomination has been made by the applicant in accordance with the provisions of section 48 E of the Act. It has been further contended that no opportunity was afforded by the Collector under the Act to the petitioner to nominate his representative. However, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that several opportunities have been afforded to the 2 petitioner to nominate his representative but the petitioner failed to turn up and the proceeding has been dropped on 9.6.2003. It appears that a proceeding was drawn against the petitioner under the provisions of section 48 E of the Act which reads as follows:- “48-E. Prevention of threatened ejectment of under raiyat and restoration to possession of under raiyat unlawfully ejected- (1) If an under raiyat is threatened with unlawful ejectment from his tenancy or any portion thereof by his landlord or if there is a dispute between them over the possession of land, crop or produce thereof either on the ground of non-existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between them or otherwise of if an under raiyat is or has been ejected from the tenancy or any portion thereof within twelve years before the commencement of proceedings under this section in contravention of the provisions of section 89 the Collector may, of his own motion or on application made in this behalf by the under raiyat, initiate a proceeding for preventing the landlord from ejecting the under raiyat or for settlement of the said dispute or for restorationof possession under raiyat unlawfully ejected from his tenancy or portion thereof.” and the record also shows that on 9.6.2003 an order was passed by the District Collector which reads as follows:- “oknh dh vksj ls mifLFkfr nh xbZ gS A iap dk uke@irk mHk; i{k dh vksj ls nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k gS A foi{kh vuqifLFkr A Okknh ds }kjk vHkh rd iap dk uke ugha fn;k x;k A ,slk izrhr gksrk gS okn esa bUgsa fnypLih ugha gS vr% okn dh dkjokbZ lekIr dh tkrh gS A” From the order passed by the respondent Collector it appears that the proceedings have been dropped. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is still in 3 possession of the land in question. Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court disposes of this application with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority in case of fresh cause of action. It is made clear that if the petitioner would approach the appropriate authority, the concerned authority shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law without being influenced with any of the observations made by this Court in any proceedings. With the above observation this appeal is disposed of. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) Abhay Kumar