IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1667 of 2000 NEBI LAL BISWAS, son of Haraf Lal Biswas, resident of village Sirnia, Police Station-Baisi, District – Purnia ……… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms at Baisi within the district of Purnia. 3. Saukhi Sah @ Sakhi Lal Sah. 4. Karam Chand Sah @ Karam Lal Sah. Both sons of late Sattan Sah. 5. Tin Kauri Sah @ Manohar Lal Sah, son of late Dharam Lal Sah. 6. Most. Bhago devi widow of late Dharam Lal Sah. Respondents 3 to 6 residents of village – Gandwas, P.S. Baisi, District - Purnia. 7. Manoj Kumar Biswas. 8. Awdhesh Kumar Biswas. 9. Sanjay Kumar Biswas. Sons of Sukhdeo Prasad Biswas, residents of Village – Sirnia, P.S. Baisi, District – Purnia. ------------------------- Respondents ----------- 10. 15.01.2009 Petitioner filed case No. 3 of 1997 before the court of DCLR, Purnia under section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act claiming right of bataidari against the respondents. The case of the petitioner with some other cases was taken up for consideration by the DCLR and vide order dated 2.12.1998, contained in annexure-3, the claim was rejected stating that the same was not worthy of consideration. Petitioner therefore has filed the present writ application challenging the said order. Submission on question of law on behalf of the petitioner is that the case of the petitioner could not be rejected in such a summary fashion taking into consideration the rejoinder filed by other side by ignoring the provision of 48-E and various sections thereunder. Law envisages that the dispute in question ought to have been resolved by first appointing a board consisting of a Chairman and two other - 2 - nominees and it ought to have been left to the board to try reconciliation or on failure of the same submit a report. But the learned DCLR adopted a unique procedure by deciding the matter at his level based on a response filed by the respondents. There is nothing on record to show that any effort at all was made to constitute a board or adopt the procedure laid down under law. The additional submission on behalf of the petitioner is that one of the reasoning given for rejecting the claim is that the rightful owner has not been made a party because the land in question had already been alienated earlier. The sale deed was executed on 24.11.1997 and the application was filed on 23rd January, 1998. Even for the sake of argument it is accepted that petitioner failed in impleading the real transferee then it was incumbent upon the learned DCLR in terms of the explanation attached to section 48- E(1) to implead such persons as parties but even this was not done by the learned DCLR. Though notices had been validly served on the respondents including the legal heirs impleaded in the writ application but no counter affidavit has been filed in the matter. Learned counsel for the State has nothing much to offer on the legal questions which have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner has made out a case for interference. The DCLR having failed to exercise his jurisdiction not in accordance with law the impugned order dated 2.12.1998 (annexure-3) deserves to be quashed - 3 - and is quashed. The writ application is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the concerned authority to deal with the application of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions laid down under section 48-E of the Bihar Tenancy Act. Since the matter is being remanded back and it is an old matter, it is hoped and expected that the proceeding would be taken up and concluded with due co-operation of the parties within one year from the date of communication/ receipt of a copy of this order. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)