IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13909 of 2002 DR.NARAYAN PRASAD SINGH, son of late Babu Raghubansh Narayan Singh, resident of village Ratanpur, P.S. Begusarai, District Begusarai… …Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The Collector, Begusarai, 3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Teghara, Begusarai, 4(i). Laxmi Devi wife of Banarsi Tanti, 4(ii).Prahlad Tanti, 4(iii).Rajesh Tanti, sons of late Banarsi Tanti, residents of village Nonpur, P.S. Teghara, District Begusarai, …. …. …Respondents with CWJC NO. 13910 OF 2002 DR.NARAYAN PRASAD SINGH, son of late Babu Raghubansh Narayan Singh, resident of village Ratanpur, P.S. Begusarai, District Begusarai… …Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The Collector, Begusarai, 3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Teghara, Begusarai, 4. Narayan Sah son of Badan Sah, resident of village Nonpur, P.S. Teghara, District Begusarai, …. …. …Respondents with CWJC NO. 14023 OF 2002 DR.NARAYAN PRASAD SINGH, son of late Babu Raghubansh Narayan Singh, resident of village Ratanpur, P.S. Begusarai, District Begusarai… …Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The Collector, Begusarai, 3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Teghara, Begusarai, 4. Mithilesh Kumar son of Ram Kripal Mahto, resident of village Nonpur, P.S. Teghara, District Begusarai, …. …. …Respondents 2 with CWJC No. 14032 of 2002 DR.NARAYAN PRASAD SINGH, son of late Babu Raghubansh Narayan Singh, resident of village Ratanpur, P.S. Begusarai, District Begusarai… …Petitioner versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The Collector, Begusarai, 3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Teghara, Begusarai, 4. Rajendra Mahto son of Bandhu Mahto, resident of village Nonpur, P.S. Teghara, District Begusarai, …. … Respondents with CWJC NO. 14035 of 2002 DR.NARAYAN PRASAD SINGH, son of late Babu Raghubansh Narayan Singh, resident of village Ratanpur, P.S. Begusarai, District Begusarai… …Petitioner versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The Collector, Begusarai, 3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Teghara, Begusarai, 4. Suraj Paswan son of Laddu Paswan,, resident of village Fardi, P.S. Teghara, District Begusarai, …. … Respondents with CWJC NO. 14040 OF 2002 DR.NARAYAN PRASAD SINGH, son of late Babu Raghubansh Narayan Singh, resident of village Ratanpur, P.S. Begusarai, District Begusarai… …Petitioner versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The Collector, Begusarai, 3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Teghara, Begusarai, 4. Ram Lakhan Mahto son of Parmeshwari Mahto, resident of village Nonpur, P.S. Teghara, District Begusarai, …. … Respondents 3 with CWJC NO. 14051 OF 2002 DR.NARAYAN PRASAD SINGH, son of late Babu Raghubansh Narayan Singh, resident of village Ratanpur, P.S. Begusarai, District Begusarai… …Petitioner versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The Collector, Begusarai, 3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Teghara, Begusarai, 4(ii). Kajo Devi, 4(iii).Sudama Devi, 4(iv). Urmila Devi, daughters of Siya Saran Mahto, 4(v) Geeta Mahto, 4(vi).Dinesh Mahto, sons of Siya Saran Mahto, residents of village Nonpur, P.S. Teghara, District Begusarai, …. … Respondents with CWJC NO. 14052 OF 2002 DR.NARAYAN PRASAD SINGH, son of late Babu Raghubansh Narayan Singh, resident of village Ratanpur, P.S. Begusarai, District Begusarai… …Petitioner versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The Collector, Begusarai, 3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Teghara, Begusarai, 4. Fuleshwar Sahni son of Lakhan Sahni, resident of village Nonpur, P.S. Teghara, District Begusarai, …. … Respondents with CWJC NO. 14080 OF 2002 DR.NARAYAN PRASAD SINGH, son of late Babu Raghubansh Narayan Singh, resident of village Ratanpur, P.S. Begusarai, District Begusarai… …Petitioner 4 versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The Collector, Begusarai, 3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Teghara, Begusarai, 4(i). Sakaldhari Sahni, 4(ii).Balwant Sahni, both sons of late Raso Sahni, residents of village Nonpur, P.S. Teghara, District Begusarai, …. … Respondents with CWJC NO. 14088 OF 2002 DR.NARAYAN PRASAD SINGH, son of late Babu Raghubansh Narayan Singh, resident of village Ratanpur, P.S. Begusarai, District Begusarai… …Petitioner versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The Collector, Begusarai, 3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Teghara, Begusarai, 4. Lakhan Thakur son Paltu Thakur, resident of village Nonpur, P.S. Teghara, District Begusarai, …. … Respondents with CWJC NO. 103 OF 2003 DR.NARAYAN PRASAD SINGH, son of late Babu Raghubansh Narayan Singh, resident of village Ratanpur, P.S. Begusarai, District Begusarai… …Petitioner versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The Collector, Begusarai, 3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Teghara, Begusarai, 4(i). Janki Devi wife of late Puran Das, 4(ii).Ram Balak Ram @ Ram Balak Das, son of late Puran Das residents of village Nonpur, P.S. Teghara, District Begusarai, …. … Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner: M/s Pramod Kumar Sinha, Madhukar Narayan Sinha and Arvind Kumar Sharma No.1,Advocates 5 For the S t a t e : Mr. K.N. Gupta, SC V, and Mr. A. Karim, AC to SC V. For Private Respondent: M/s Sanjay Kumar Sinha and Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocates … 6 10.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Since similar questions arise in all the writ applications, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The writ petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 12.08.2002 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Teghara, Begusarai, in Bataidari Case Nos. 10/1985-86, 16/1985-86, 23/1985-86, 26/1985-86, 18/1985-86, 21/1985-86 20/1985-86, 13/1985-86, 15/1985-86, 19/1985-86 and 24/1985-86. In all the matters, the concerned respondents have filed a petition under section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885(hereinafter to be referred to as “Act”). The lands under dispute are as follows:- CWJC No. Mouza Khata No. Plot No. Area B. K. D. 13909/02 Fardi 113 432 00-18-00 13910/02 Fardi 113 432 00-13-00 14023/02 Fardi 113 432 01-06-00 6 14032/02 Fardi 113 432 00-11-00 14035/02 Fardi 113 432 00-10-00 14040/02 Fardi 113 432 00-15-00 14051/02 Fardi 113 432 00-14-00 14052/02 Fardi 113 432 00-12-00 14080/02 Fardi 113 432 0-16-00 14088/02 Fardi 113 432 01-05-00 103/03 Fardi 113 432 00-14-00 The applications in Bataidari Cases were filed in the year 1985 and were dismissed. The aggrieved parties preferred appeal before the Collector, who had ordered for constituting conciliation Board and referring the matter to it. Thereafter the matter was challenged before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4874 of 1987 and by order dated 04.05.1998, as contained in annexure 3, this Court set aside all the orders and remitted back the matter to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms concerned to decide the individual cases and claims of the contesting respondents after being satisfied relating to prima facie claims of the individual respondents. Thereafter the matter was heard and after hearing the concerned party, the Bataidari Board was constituted on 19.11.2001. However, 7 when the Board could not submit its report within the stipulated time, the matter was withdrawn from it and decided by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioners raises short question by drawing attention of the Court towards the provision, as contained in sub-section (10) of Section 48E of the Act, which is quoted as under: “(10). If the Board fails to record its findings or transmit the records as required under sub-section (7) within a period of six months[which shall be reckoned from the date of its appointment under sub-section (3)] the Collector may withdraw the proceeding from the Board and decide the dispute himself according to the provisions of this section.” It is contended that after withdrawal of the proceeding from the Board the Collector was required to decide the dispute himself according to the provisions, as contained in Section 48E of the Act. Submission is that the Collector under the Act was first required to take steps for amicable settlement between the parties. Upon failure of such effort, the Collector was required to record the evidence and decide the matter. Whereas it is manifest 8 from the order under challenge that the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms concerned has neither made any effort for amicable settlement nor has recorded any evidence of the respective parties. He has simply passed the order after doing local inspection. Further submission is that the impugned order is not a speaking or reasoned one. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4(in all the cases) submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Collector when the Board could not sent its recommendation/report and since the relevant facts were ascertained during local inspection and also as opinion of local persons was taken, the order impugned cannot be said to be bad in law. I find force in the submission raised on behalf of the petitioners. In my considered opinion on plain reading of the relevant provision, it appears that the Collector under the Act was required to follow the procedure as laid down under section 48E of the Act, which requires effort of amicable settlement by him and if the same fails, then he could have proceeded to record evidence of all the concerned parties and should have decided the matter upon analysing the same. 9 Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Rasik Lal Singh and others v. State of Bihar and others(AIR 1979 Patna, 172), wherein it has been held that when the Board failed to record its finding and to transmit the record to the Collector under sub-section (7) of Section 48E of the Act, in that circumstance, the Collector after withdrawal of the proceeding from the Board under sub-section (10) of Section 48E of the Act has to decide the dispute himself. It has further been held that while doing so, the Collector is required to make endeavour to bring about an amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties. If the Collector fails in his endeavour for amicable settlement of the dispute, he will be entitled to record evidence under sub-section (7) of Section 48E of the Act. There is yet another decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Narayan Das v. The State of Bihar and ors.(1999(2) PLJR, 2) the aforesaid decision in Rasik Lal Singh(supra) has been followed and it has again been decided that the Collector was required to make endeavour for amicable settlement. The parties were also free to lead 10 further evidence. Learned counsel for the State was also not in a position to show as to how impugned orders could be sustained specially in view of the aforesaid Division Bench decisions of this Court. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the authorities, as cited above, I am constrained to hold that the impugned orders dated 12.08.2002, as contained in annexure 6 in all the writ applications are in teeth of the law laid down in Rasik Lal Singh(supra) and Ram Narayan Das(supra), and, thus, they are set aside. However, the matter is remitted back to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Teghara, to decide it afresh from the stage of sub-section (10) of Section 48E of the Act following the procedure as contained therein. As it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that Chandramukhi Devi, who has been made party in all the Bataidari Cases, has died and, thus, these writ applications have been filed by the heirs and legal representative, it is required by the private respondent to take steps for substitution of the heirs and legal representatives in the Bataidari Cases and implead 11 them as parties. If such petitions are filed by the private respondent, the same should be considered and disposed of by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms concerned in accordance with law. Accordingly, all the writ applications stand allowed. However, it is also made clear that this Court has not formed any opinion with regard to the merit of the cases of the respective parties, as the matters have been decided on short question raised by the petitioners. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)