IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15065 of 2010 1) Pappu Yadav, 2) Bablu Kumar Yadav, 3) Raju Yadav, 4) Chandan Kumar Yadav, all sons of Sri ram Bilas Yadav, village Arangi, PS Kidwa, Dist. Katihar – Petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Katihar. 2. The Collector, Katihar. 3. The D.C.L.R., Katihar. 4. Shib Nandan Prasad Bhagat, 5. Ganesh Prasad Bhagat, 6. Jai Nandan Bhagat, all sons of Late Rama Prasad, village Chandpur, PS Kadwa, District Katihar – Respondents. 2 13.9.2010 The petitioners have filed an application under section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act claiming that their grand father was the Bataidar of the land appertaining to plot no. 11/64, measuring 33 decimals and plot no. 28, measuring 73 decimals. The petitioners claim that after notice to the parties, the court should have sent the matter for amicable settlement. Undoubtedly the question of amicable settlement arises in a case, where prima facie the Bataidar is able to show that he has a claim under section 48E of the Act. The impugned order gives reasons for dismissing the Bataidari application. The first reason put forth by the D.C.L.R. is that the petitioners who claim to be Bataidar were not able to give the correct area of the land which was allegedly in their occupation by virtue of being tiller of the land. The area given by the petitioners differs from the area as mentioned in the Khatiyan. The 2 petitioners were also not able to give the correct boundary of the lands, which they were claiming under the Act. Besides the aforesaid two reasons, the D.C.L.R. on the basis of the record has also come to the conclusion that during the consolidation proceedings, the names of the petitioners were not entered in the consolidation chak as Bataidars of the lands in question. This court finds that the reasoning given by the D.C.L.R. are based on cogent facts which are relevant for deciding whether prima facie the person claiming to be an under-raiyat for the past several years was in actual cultivating possession of the lands. I accordingly see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. This writ petition is dismissed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)