Laxmi Kant Rai vs The State of Bihar and Others

S.J. Mukhopadhya, J.—The Petitioner Laxmi Kant Rai has challenged the order dated 14.10.87 passed in Batai case No. 22/87-88, whereby and where under the D.C.L.R. Begusarai ordered to constitute a Batai Board in pursuance of a petition which was filed by Respondent No. 4, Kaleshwar Paswan u/s 48E of B.T. Act.

In view of the order, I intend to pass to which the counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 4 have agreed, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, claim and counter claim of the parties, except the relevant one.

Admittedly, the Petitioner earlier filed a petition u/s 48E of B.T. Act claiming himself to be an under raiyat Bataidar of Respondent No. 5 A.P.S. Trust. The application as registered as Batai case No. 43/74-75, wherein after hearing the parties an order was passed by D.C.L.R. on 18.10.75 in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was declared under raiyat (Bataidar of the Trust) and the Trust. was directed not to eject the Petitioner from the land which was the subject matter in the said case.

It appears that after 12 years in the year 1987, Respondent No. 4, Kaleshwar Paswan filed an application u/s 48E of the B.T. Act claiming himself to be under raiyat of A.P.S. Trust. It was registered as Batai Case No. 22/87-88, wherein the Petitioner appeared and objected the maintainability of the said case. The Petitioner brought to the notice of D.C.L.R. that earlier by order dated 18.10.85, the Petitioner was declared to be under raiyat (Bataidar of the Trust) and thereby the subsequent petition by Respondent No. 4 was not maintainable. However, after hearing the parties, the D.C.L.R. Begusarai ordered to constitute a Batai Board vide impugned order dated 14.10.87 and asked the parties to take part in the said proceeding.

Counsel for the Petitioner relied on different enclosures attached to the writ petition including the rent receipts to show that the Petitioner Is still under raiyat of the Trust and thereby the second petition was not maintainable with respect to the same set of land.

Counsel for the Respondent No. 4, on the other hand, while raised the question relating to legality of earlier order, dated 18.10.97, submitted that Respondent No. 4 is the under raiyat (Bataidar) of the Trust in question.

In spite of notice, nobody appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 5, A.P.S. Trust, nor any counter-affidavit has been filed on their behalf.

From the pleadings made by the parties, it is not clear as to what was the total land which belonged to Trust and whether Respondent No. 4 is claiming to be under raiyat of the Trust with respect to the same set of land for which the Petitioner was declared under raiyat of the Trust. In the aforesaid circumstances, according to me, it is desirable for the D.C.L.R. concerned to decide the issue aforesaid and then to take step for constitution of Batai Board, if so required under the law.

Accordingly, the case is remitted to the D.C.L.R., Begusarai to determine the following issues:

(i) Which are the area with respect to which the Petitioner, Laxmi Kant Rai was declared to be under raiyat (Bataidar) of A.P.S. Trust by order dated 18.10.75. For such determination, if so required, he will make local enquiry in presence of the parties and will also take into consideration the evidences that may be led by the parties including the Petitioner.

(ii) After such decision, if it is found that there is some other land of which the Petitioner is not under raiyat (Bataidar) but the claim of Respondent No. 4 is with respect to such land then he will proceed with the matter by constituting a Batai Board and pass order in accordance with law.

It is needless to say that the D.C.L.R. cannot reopen the legality of the earlier order dated 18.10.75 passed in Batai Case No. 43/74-75 in the present case, nor he can allow any second application u/s 48E of the B.T. Act with respect to same set land for which the Petitioner was declared to be the under raiyat of the trust.

The writ petition stands disposed of, with the aforementioned observations/directions. There will be no order as to costs.