IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.776 of 2008 ****** 1. Krishnadeo Singh, son of Late Bishwanath Singh 2. Kapil Rajak, son of Late Sheopujan Rajak 3. Nata Paswan, son of Late Rajaram Paswan 4. Sukul Paswan, son of Late Sitaram Paswan 5. Lalan Paswan, son of Late Harisharan Paswan All residents of Village-Chandu Dehra, P.S. Itarhi, District-Buxar. … … (Petitioners in the writ petition) - Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Collector, Buxar. 3. The D.C.L.R., Buxar, having his office at Buxar, P.S. Buxar, District-Buxar. 4. The Circle Officer, Itarhi, P.S. Itarhi, District-Buxar. 5. The Deity of Thakur Jee, Bharakhara, through its Mahanth Shri Chandrama Das, Chela of Shri Ram Lakhan Das of Thakurjee Math, situate at Village-Bharakhara, P.S.- Rajpur (Dhansoi), District-Buxar. … …(Respondents in the writ petition) – Respondents ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Birendra Prasad Verma, Senior Advocate Dr. Mrityunjaya Kumar Gautam, Advocate Mr. Yogendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Mr. Krishna Chandra Jha, Junior Counsel to Standing Counsel-XVIII ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 21st October, 2008. The submission of the senior counsel for the appellant is principally two fold, namely, (one) that the order passed by the - 2 - D.C.L.R., Buxar on 22nd November, 2000 was under Section 48 E (10) and such order is not appealable under Section 48 F, and (two) in any case since the writ petition has been pending before this Court for almost eight years, there was no justification in relegating the appellant to the remedy of statutory appeal. 2. None of the contentions advanced by the senior counsel has any merit. It is not in dispute that the conciliation board has in fact recorded its finding and taken decision in the matter although not within six months. Inter alia, the pre-requisite of Section 48E (10) is the failure on the part of the board in recording the findings or transferring the record as required under sub-section (7). In view of the fact that the findings were recorded by the reconciliation board, Section 48E (10) is not attracted. As a matter of fact, the order passed by the D.C.L.R. is traceable to Section 48E (8) as he differed with the report of the reconciliation board and took its own decision. Any order passed by the D.C.L.R. under Section 48E (8) is appealable under Section 48F of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885, which provides that an appeal shall lie from an order referred to in sub-section (7) and (8) of Section 48E. 3. In this view of the matter, the finding of the Single Judge that the order of the D.C.L.R. was amenable to appeal under Section 48F cannot be said to suffer from any error of law. 4. As regards the second contention advanced by the senior counsel for the appellant, suffice it to say, that writ petition - 3 - although remained pending before this Court, yet it was only at the stage of admission. Writ petition has not been admitted for final hearing. There being efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 48F, the Single Judge cannot be said to have erred in relegating the appellants to the remedy of appeal provided under Section 48F of the Act. 5. L.P.A. does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-