IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.8888 OF 2009 1. BABU LAL YADAV, SON OF LATE PAKIR YADAV 2. ASHARAFI RAM, SON OF LATE JIBACH RAM 3. MOST. LILA DEVI, WIFE OF RAM CAHRITAR MANDAL 4. CHULHAI YADAV, SON OF PACHKAURI YADAV 5. SITA RAM YADAV, SON OF MAHADEO YADAV 6. SHANKER YADAV, SON OF MAHADEO YADAV 7. BIKAU YADAV, SON OF LATE MKHAN YADAV 8. GUJAR RAM, SON OF JIBACH RAM 9. SATYA DEO YADAV, SON OF LATE FAKIR YADAV 10. MANGAL MANDAL, SON OF LTE SONAI MANDAL 11. TEJ NARAYAN YADAV, SON OF RAM SUNDER YADAV 12. MOST. DOMANI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE RAM PRASAD YADAV 13. SATYA NARAYAN YADAV, SON OF MAHADEO YADAV 14. RAM CHANDRA YADAV, SON OF SAYADEO YADAV 15. DEEP NARAYAN, SON OF RAM SUNDER YADAV 16. RAM SUNDER YADAV, SON OF LATE GANESHWAR YADAV 17. RAM KISHUN YADAV, SON OF LATE GANESHWAR YADAV ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE LAKSAYAR, POLICE STATION RAHIKA, DISTRICT MADHUBANI …………………………………………………………………….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, MADHUBANI 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, SADAR MADHUBANI 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, RAHIKA, MADHUBANI 5. MAHANATH RAMASHRAYA DAS, SON OF CHETHARU THAKUR 6. NARESH THAKUR, SON OF RAMDEO THAKUR 7. UMESH THAKUR, SON OF RAM DOHAI THAKUR 5 TO 7 ARE THE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE LAKSAYAR, POLICE STATION RAHIKA, DISTRICT MADHUBANI …………………………………………………………….RESPONDENTS *********** 3 10/08/2009 The petitioners’ claim being as bataidar has moved this Court against the orders dated 27.01.2006 and 17.03.2008. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar Madhubani has by a detailed order considered the cases of the parties and passed the order on each 2 of the claims made by the 18 bataidars who had filed an application before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector has found that the bataidars have not stated the correct area of the land, the correct boundary of the land, and in some cases they are claiming that they are bataidars of the land although they are working in government service and living away from the village. In the circumstances, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector has found that there are enormous discrepancies in the claims of the petitioners and as such has found that no prima facie case has been made out regarding the claim that the petitioners are the bataidars of the private respondents. The case of each of the parties has been discussed in the impugned order and this Court finds that the reasons mentioned in dismissing the claims of the petitioners are not only correct but go to the very route of the matter inasmuch as if it is claimed by a person that he is a bataidar, it is incumbent upon him to show that he was cultivating the land in question. The petitioners being failed to show that they were in cultivating possession of the lands in question. In the circumstances, this Court finds 3 no reason to interfere with the impugned order as contained in Annexures 3 and 4. This writ application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )