Baleshwar Mochi And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10926 of 1994

2/12

3/12

4/12

5/12

6/12

7/12

8/12

9/12 Nalanda.

-------------Respondents.

10/12 =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Naresh Prasad, Advocate. Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.

For the State : Mr. Ajay, G.A. XII Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha, A.C. to G.A. XII =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 02-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the counsel for private respondent no. 4.

2. Petitioners claimed themselves to be the under-raiyat of the lands in question. They have filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 27.05.1994, Annexure-4 passed by D.C.L.R., Hilsa in Bataidari Case No. 01/1992-93 whereunder claim of the petitioners that they are under-raiyat of the lands in question has been rejected after recalling the proceedings from the Bataidari Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) on the ground that punches were erroneously nominated by the Chairman of the Board.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the order recalling the proceedings from the Board passed by D.C.L.R., Hilsa is contrary to sub-clause (10) of Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act)

11/12 as recall of the proceedings is not permissible on the ground that the punches were erroneously nominated by the Chairman of the Board.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have not been able to establish from the order-sheet of either the collector under the Act i.e. D.C.L.R., Hilsa or the Chairman of the Board i.e. Circle Officer, Chandi that the proceeding was recalled by the collector under the Act from the Chairman of the Board within six months. In the circumstances, submission raised that the proceedings were erroneously recalled, does not have any merit and is rejected.

5. Perusal of order dated 27.05.1994 indicates that the petitioners were not bataidars of the lands in question, as in several proceedings taken earlier they never raised such claim and their claim of possession over the lands in question as under-raiyat was negatived in those proceedings.

6. In view of the findings recorded by the collector under the Act that petitioners were never in possession of the lands in question, I am not inclined to interfere with the matter at this distance of time when from the gazette notification, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit it is evident that the lands in question were acquired pursuant to a ceiling proceeding

12/12 initiated against respondent no. 4 vide gazette notification dated 28.06.1976. Writ petition is dismissed.

(V.N. Sinha, J) Rajesh/- U