IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11498 of 2002 RAM LAKHAN PRASAD, SON OF LATE YADU NANDAN PRASAD SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – LAUKAHI, POLICE STATION – LAUKAHI, DISTRICT – MADHUBANI. ………. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, MADHUBANI, DISTRICT – MADHUBANI. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, JHANJHARPUR, DISTRICT – MADHUBANI. 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER – FULPARAS, DISTRICT – FULPARAS. 5. ABDUL HAQUIM, SON OF LATE ABDUL GAFFAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – LAUKAHI, POLICE STATION LAUKAHI, DISTRICT – MADHUBANI. 6. GAFFAR ANSARI, SON OF LATE MD. ALI ANSARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – ATARI TOLA – DHATA, POLICE STATION – LAUKAHI, DISTRICT – MADHUBANI ……………………...... RESPONDENTS ----------- 05 01.07.2009 Mr. Uday Chandra Prasad, learned counsel appears for the petitioner and State is represented by Mr. A.K. Mishra A.C. to S.C. XVI. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 23.12.2000 passed by the Additional Collector, Madhubani in Appeal Case No. 113 of 1996- 97. Respondent No. 5 filed a petition under Section 48(E) of B.T. Act claiming himself to be the under Raiyat of the land-lord, namely, Late Yadu Nandan Prasad Sah, who had four sons, namely, Ram Lakhan Prasad (Petitioner), Raj Kumar Prasad, Bal Kumar Prasad and Anand Kumar Prasad Sah. Accordingly, the proceeding was initiated by the Collector. A Board was appointed and matter was referred to it. The Bataidari Board concerned did not succeed in amicable settlement of the disputed lands and, therefore, made local - 2 - inspection. At the time of such inquiry the Members of the Board and others were present. Statements were recorded and the Board came to the conclusion that the respondent no. 5 is under Raiyat (Bataidar) and after recording its finding sent its recommendations to the Collector. The Collector under the Act (Sub-Divisional Officer, Phulparas) passed an order thereafter holding therein that the matter was earlier subject to a Partition Suit No. 142 of 1951 wherein the matter was now compromised and the land in dispute appertaining to Plot No. 192 of an area of 1 Bigha, 10 Khata and two Dhur was given in the share of one Sri Yadu Nandan Prasad, who is father of the petitioner. It was also mentioned that earlier in Bataidari Case No. 833 of 1979-80 the Sub-Divisional Offices, Jhanjharpur, after accepting the petitioner as the land-lord has passed an order disposing of the aforesaid Baitadari case declaring the respondent no. 6 as the Bataidar and issued parcha. On the aforesaid account the claim of the respondent no. 5 was rejected and the present Bataidari Case No. 174 of 1992 was dismissed. Respondent no. 5 preferred an Appeal No. 113 of 1996-97 before the Additional Collector, Madhubani, who after hearing the parties and consideration of the records, had allowed the appeal. It had been held by the appellate authority that it would be apparent from the records of the original court that during the course of local inspection, Anand Kumar Sah was found as land-lord and the land was found to be in possession of the respondent no. 2 for last 30 to 40 years. The Bataidari Board having failed in amicable settlement also recorded its - 3 - finding that the respondent no. 5 was in possession as Bataidar. The Appellate Authority held that the Sub-Divisional Officer did not consider the recommendation/report of the “Board” and without recording any reason for disagreeing with such recommendations and without recording such recommendation has passed the order which is brought on record by the petitioner which is contained in Annexure – 2 of this petition. It was further held by the Appellate Authority that there was nothing on record to show the factum of earlier Bataidari Case No. 833 of 1979-80 wherein Bataidar Parcha was issued in favour of the respondent no. 6. Thus, on the aforesaid ground the original order passed by the Collector under the Act was set aside and the recommendations of the Board were accepted. The appeal was allowed and direction was given to issue parcha in favour of respondent no. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that of course the land was part of the suit as aforesaid and was allotted in favour of his father but in terms of family arrangement the same is coming in possession of the petitioner and the State Government is realizing rent from him and receipt is also granted by the State. One such receipt has brought on record as Annexure – 1. His further submission is that with regard to the aforesaid land, another Bataidari Case No. 1983 of 1979-80 was initiated showing the petitioner as the landlord and in that case, respondent no. 6 was issued Bataidari Parcha after declaring him Bataidar of the petitioner. In view of this matter it is submitted that the order passed - 4 - by the Appellate Authority is illegal and liable to be set aside. I do not find force in the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner, in as much as, the land in question belonged to the father of the petitioner and brother of the petitioner has been found as landlord and respondent no. 5 has been found to be in possession for the last 30 to 40 years as under raiyat both during initial inspection and also during the course of inspection by the Members of the Board. The rent receipt issued in favour of the petitioner without prejudice is of no help to the petitioner specially as the same is a document of the year 2000-2001, i.e., during the pendency of the cases. It has been categorically held by the Appellate Authority that there is nothing on record to show that in Bataidari Case No. 833 of 1979-80 one Gaffar Ansari had been issued Bataidar Parcha. Aforesaid Gaffar Ansari has not come before this Court challenging the aforesaid order. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the appellate order warranting inference by this Court. As a result this application fails and is accordingly dismissed. Kundan (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)