IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.480 of 2009 1 BASUDEO YADAV SON OF CHHOTAN YADAV. 2. SADHU YADAV SON OF LATE AGNU YADAV BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- KATH BAJRA, P.S. JHAJHA, DISTRICT- JAMUI..... APPELLANTS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MUNGER PRAMANDAL,MUNGER 3. THE COLLECTOR, JAMUI, DISTT- JAMUI 4. DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, JAMUI 5. THE SUBDIVISIONAL OFFICER, JAMUI. 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, JHAJHA 7. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, JHAJHA. 8. RAMESHWAR YADAV SON OF LATE GIRDHARI YADAV 9. BALESHWAR YADAV SON OF LATE DEBU YADAV. BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KHAIRAN,P.S. JHAJHA DISTRICT- JAMUI...............................RESPONDENTS. ----------------- FOR THE APPELLANTS :- MR.INDU BHUSHAN PRASAD;- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS-1 TO 7 :- MR. ANIRUDH KR. SINHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS 8 &9 :- MR. ANISH AKHTAR, A.C. TO A.A.G.-10 ----------------------- 4 26-11-2009 Heard the parties. It is not necessary to go into the details of the facts in view of nature of the proposed order. It is clear from the annexures to the memorandum of appeal that in the first round of litigation the appellant did not raise the issue that he was threatened with dispossession as an under rayat and hence no relief could be given to him which he had claimed by asserting that he and his ancestors are recorded as Sikmidar since survey i.e. 1910. It is clear from annexure-3 to the memorandum of appeal that respondent Rameshwar Yadav and others approached the Divisional Commissioner, Munger in Jamui Revision Case No. 31 of 1996-97 - 2 - and at their instance the Commissioner passed order dated 19-4-2003 and remanded the case record to the court of L.R.D.C., Jamui with a direction to proceed in the matter as per Section 48-E of the Bihar Tenancy Act. There is no dispute that the parties accepted that order and the L.R.D.C., Jamui, on account of technicalities relating to jurisdiction transferred the records to the court of Subdivisional Officer, Jamui for complying with the order of the Commissioner. The order of the Subdivisional Officer contained in annexure-4 shows that the Subdivisional Officer treated the case as an appeal arising out of mutation proceeding and failed to understand the correct import of the order passed by the Commissioner. That has led to gross non- compliance with the provisions of Section 48-E of the B.T.Act particularly those relating to appointment of a Board along with Chairman and legal obligation upon the Board to first make efforts for amicable settlement as provided under Sub-section (6) of Section 48-E of the B.T.Act. In such circumstances, we have no option but to set aside the order passed by the Subdivisional Officer, Jamui as well as the revisional order passed by the Collector- Jamui contained in annexures 4 and 5 respectively to the writ petition and remand the matter back to the Subdivisional Officer, Jamui or to any other competent officer vested with the power of Collector under the B.T. Act to settle the dispute under section 48-D and 48-E of the B.T.Act. It is expected that the concerned authorities shall decide such dispute - 3 - as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law without being prejudiced by observations or findings of this Court or any other authorities. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,ACJ) ( Shyam Kishore Sharma,J) Naresh