IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4199 of 2002 MANOJ KUMAR MEHTA son of Sadanand Mehta Resident of village Tehri Musharhi, P.S.- Forbesganj, District- Araria Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Collector, Araria 2. The Collector, Araria 3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Forbesganj. 4. Ramanand Yadav son of Sukhdeo Yadav, resident of village- Tehri Musharhi, P.S.- Forbesganj, District- Araria. 5. Additional Collector, Araria, District- Araria. ----------- 3 21.01.2009 Heard the parties. The petitioner challenges the order dated 19.12.2000 passed by the respondent no.5 in Case No. 55 of 1996-97 which is in the nature of Bataidari Appeal. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no. 5 set aside the order dated 31.12.1996 in Bataidari Case No. 719 of 1982-83 without considering the documents considered by the original authority for dismissing the Bataidari claim of the respondent no.4. The respondent no.5 merely taking into consideration the proceedings of the three conciliation boards set aside the order passed by the respondent no.3 dismissing the Bataidari claim of the respondent no.4. The petitioner in sum and substance submits that the possession of the land in question was never with the respondent no.4 nor the petitioner had ever given the land to them for cultivation purposes. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 opposes the contention of the petitioner and submits that the respondent no. 4 was in possession of the land in question over which the Bataidari claim has been claimed since long time in a cultivating status. At this stage the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent no.5 both submits that let the matter be decided by the Additional Collector, respondent no.5 afresh. Upon considering the submissions of the parties and going through the impugned order which involves the disputed questions of fact with regard to possession, the order dated 19.12.2000, as contained in Annexure-2, is, hereby, quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.5 to pass the order afresh taking into consideration the materials brought on record after hearing both the parties expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order. The writ application is, accordingly disposed of with the above observations/directions. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)