IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 13286 of 2005 CHOTA BESRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS W I T H CWJC No 15608 of 2005 BAIJU TUDDU Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS W I T H CWJC No 15649 of 2005 PATWARI TUDDU Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS W I T H CWJC No 15654 of 2005 MANGAL BESRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS W I T H CWJC No 15674 of 2005 LONGRA MURMU Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS W I T H CWJC No 15682 of 2005 BARKA BESRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS W I T H CWJC No 15766 of 2005 POLICE MURMU & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS W I T H CWJC No 55 of 2006 DHENA SOREN @ DENA SOREN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 15.07.2008 These eight writ applications challenge orders made by the learned DCLR refusing to entertain the application of the petitioners in terms of Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act for declaring them Bataidars and protecting their interest. Heard the learned counsel for 2 the petitioners and with his consent, the writ applications are being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The impugned order of DCLR, in my view, correctly mentions that the petitioners’ application cannot be considered because their earlier application was dismissed which dismissal was upheld in revision by the Collector. The order of the Collector or original order of the DCLR was not challenged by the petitioners. Those orders were passed on 22.05.1998 and 20.02.2001 respectively. Those orders, having attained finality, could not be upset and the matter reheard. In my view, no error has been committed by the learned DCLR in this respect. Petitioners submit that, in all, seventeen persons had laid claim against respondent No 5 for being declared Bataidars. The claims were separate and independent. They were all rejected by the DCLR by his order dated 22.05.1998 and then the revisions were separately dismissed by the Collector, Katihar by separate orders dated 20.02.2001. Petitioners were also in the seventeen people. Out of those seventeen, seven had earlier moved this Court immediately against those orders and this Court set aside the orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by order dated 30.01.2004 passed in CWJC No 4277 of 2001 (Hajo Chura and analogous cases) (Annexure-2). While disposing of the said writ applications, I may mention, his Lordship has clearly noticed thus : “It appears to me on a perusal of the applications that each application dealt with separate plot of land covering different area. It 3 would thus mean that different applications raise claims of different persons with respect to different plots of land. Therefore, learned counsel for respondents are not right in their submission that the seven applications are same or similar. In fact, those are fundamentally different.” In view of the fact, as noted, when they were separate, independent and different applications, it was open to the petitioners to also come to this Court simultaneously. Inspite of the fact that those writ petition were allowed by this Court on 30.01.2004, they chose not to take any steps but after almost two years, on 20th of October 2005, they have chosen to file the present writ applications having been unable to persuade the DCLR who was moved by petition dated 05.04.2004 to review his order. DCLR rightly refused the same as his order had been affirmed by the appellate authority which order had attained finality. To my mind, this shows that the claims of the petitioners are not bona fide. Thus, the writ petitions merit no consideration and are dismissed as such. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)