IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2749 of 2002 1 (A) BRIKSHA SINGH, SON OF LATE SHIV NATH SINGH 1 (B) JAWAHAR SINGH, SON OF LATE SHIV NATH SINGH 1 (C) KRISHNA SINGH, SON OF SON OF LATE SHIV NATH SINGH 1 (D) GANGH SINGH, SON OF SON OF LATE SHIV NATH SINGH 1 (E) SRIMATI KANTI DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE SHIV NATH SINGH 1 (F) SRIMATI KANTI SINGH, DAUGHTER OF LATE SHIVE NATH SINGH 2. RAM AYODHYA SINGH 3. BHOLA SINGH 4. JAMUNA SINGH 5. JANG BAHADUR SINGH 6. RANG BAHADUR SINGH ALL ( 2 TO 6) SONS OF BISHNATH SINGH ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SRI KHANDI, P.S. SUGAULI, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. ----- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. LAND REFORM DEPUTY COLLECTOR, RAXAUL (EAST CHAMPARAN), MOTIHARI 3. (i) RADHA KRISHNA YADAV 3. (ii) JAGAT NARAYAN YADAV 3. (iii) AWADH YADAV 3. (iv) AMAR YADAV 3. (v) PUJA YADAV, ALL 3 (i) TO 3 (v) ARE SONS OF SURTI DEVI, FATHER’S NAME LATE LAXMI YADAV 3. (vi) SHARMA YADAV 3. (vii) RAMDHIR YADAV 3. (viii) DHARMENDRA YADAV 3. (ix) RABINDRA YADAV 3. (x) MOST. PANA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE JAGDISH YADAV, ALL SONS OF LATE JAGDISH YADAV, GRAND SONS OF SURTI DEVI ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SRI KHANDI, P.S. SUGAULI, P.O. CHAINPUR, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. 3. (xi) MOST. GIRJA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE AMBIKA YADAV, DAUGHTER OF SURTI DEVI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHAIRI, P.S. BANJARIA, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. 3. (xii) NARESH YADAV 3. (xiii) UMESH YADAV, SONS OF LATE AMBIKA YADAV, GRAND SONS OF SURTI DEVI. RESIDENT 3 (xi) TO 3(xii) OF VILLAGE GURHGAUNA, P.O. MALI, P.S. SUGAULI, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. 4. LAXAMAN MAHTO, SON OF LATE ATUWAL MAHTO 5. LALAN MAHTO, SON OF LATE RAJA RAM MAHTO 6. JATTA SHANKAR MAHTO, SON OF LATE NAKCHHED MAHTO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHIRKHAND, P.S. SUGAULI, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. ------ RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 13 8.9.2010 Petitioners are claiming to be Bataidaars of Rasul Mian and Rajak Mian. After Rasul Mian and Rajak Mian had sold their lands to respondent nos. 3 to 6, a proceeding under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act was filed which is numbered as 54 of 1979-80 and 55 of 1979-80. The claim of Bataidaars was dismissed by the D.C.L.R. which was challenged by the petitioners by filing a writ application. The writ application was allowed. Thereafter respondents moved the Letters Patent Appeal in this Court. The order is contained in Annexure-5. On perusal of the order of this Court, it appears that the Court had observed that since no steps were taken for amicable settlement, the entire proceeding under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act would vitiate. This Court, therefore, remanded the case back to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Motihari to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law. After the matter went back to the D.C.L.R., the parties appeared. In pursuance of the order of the Court, the D.C.L.R. appointed Chairman of the Board, subsequently the Board gave its report, which could not be accepted due to some technical problem in the report. Thereafter the proceeding was started from scrap, in which the parties led evidence on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed. During hearing of the case, spot verification was made of the lands in question. During spot verification on 8.1.2001 the villagers gathered at the spot and informed the D.C.L.R. that they were trying to get the matter settled amicably outside the Court. 3 Later on they informed the D.C.L.R. that it is not possible to come to any amicable settlement between the parties. The petitioners as well as the respondents led evidence in this case and it would appear that five witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioners and about nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents. The Court has come to the conclusion that the witnesses on behalf of the petitioners could not establish that the petitioners were Bataidaars of the land in question. In fact the petitioners’ witnesses were not able to state the boundary of the land in question. One of the points raised on behalf of the respondents was that they were small land holders and protected under Section 48C of the Bihar Tenancy Act. The witnesses led on behalf of the respondents had consistently stated that the petitioners did not have any other lands except the lands which they had purchased from the original land holder Rasul Mian and Rajak Mian and as such they were protected under Section 48C(i)(a) of the Bihar Tenancy Act. The main argument of the petitioners is that the order of the Court contained in Annexure-4, has not been followed in this case, as there was no attempts at amicable settlement as envisaged under Section 48E Sub section 4 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. On perusal of the order of the D.C.L.R., it is apparent that attempts were made for amicable settlement as directed by the High Court by constituting a Board, however, the report of the Board was rejected, and thereafter the petitioners participated in 4 the proceeding, by presenting themselves for the purposes of spot verification, leading evidence with respect to all aspects of the case and participating in the hearing. In effect there has been substantive compliance of the order of the High Court contained in Annexure-4, inasmuch as attempts were made for amicable settlement by the D.C.L.R. by appointment of a Board. It is also obvious that the parties cannot settle the matter amicable between themselves, thus the question that had to be decided was, whether the petitioners were the Bataidaars of Rasul Mian and Rajak Mian. The issue has been dealt with in the order of the D.C.L.R. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners did not get an opportunity to put forth their point or show to the Court that they were Bataidaars of Rasul Mian and Rajak Mian. All these aspects have been considered in the order of the D.C.L.R. Besides which the D.C.L.R. has also come to the finding that the present respondents are small land holders and they are protected under Section 48C of the Bihar Tenancy Act. I may clarify that the reason for dismissing the writ is not because the respondents are protected under Section 48C of the Bihar Tenancy Act, or because the matter is very old, but because they have not been able to substantiate their case that they were Bataidaars of Rasul Mian and Rajak Mian. This writ application is, thus, dismissed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)