Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 415 (PAT)

Jalpa Soren v. State Of Bihar

2000-03-13

NARAYAN ROY

body2000
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 4 to 8. 2. By this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 17.10.1998 passed in R.A. Case No. 89 of 1996-97, whereby and whereunder the Collector under the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter to be referred to as "Act") has rejected the claim of the petitioner under section 48-E of the Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner inter alia submitted that the Collector under the Act without referring the matter to the Conciliation Board has rejected the claim of the petitioner contrary to the law laid down by this Court and the Collector under the Act without considering the case of the parties in correct perspective rejected the same holding that the petitioner has tried to create a right by grabbing the land. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the Collector under the Act having been fully satisfied that a prima facie case is not made out rejected the claim of the petitioner after seeing the documentary evidence adduced by the land holder. 5. I have perused the order impugned. By the impugned order, the Collector under the Act has detailed the reasons for not accepting the claim of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner could not satisfy the authority under the Act with regard to the land in question and with regard to the land holder. It further appears that twelve cases were filed on the same day seeking relief under section 48-E of the Act against the common land holder. On perusal of the order impugned it is manifest that a proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as "Code") as also a proceeding under section 144 of the Code was initiated in between the parties and the petitioner and other claimants were restrained from going over the land in question. The Collector under the Act having considered the cases of the parties, thus, held that the claim of the petitioner is not genuine and it appears to be a land grabbing movement. The Collector under the Act having considered the cases of the parties, thus, held that the claim of the petitioner is not genuine and it appears to be a land grabbing movement. Several documents have been filed by way of counter affidavit showing that the proceedings under sections 107 and 144 of the Code were initiated in between the parties for the same set of land. 6. It is settled by various decisions of this Court that the Collector under the Act is not duty bound to refer almost all the cases in a routine way to the reconciliation board. Repeatedly, it has been held by this Court that the Collector under the Act has to be satisfied first as to whether prima facie case is disclosed for giving relief under section 48-E of the Act and only when the Collector is satisfied that a prima facie claim is there, he may refer the matter to the reconciliation board for amicable settlement of the dispute in between the parties. In this connection, reference can be made to the cases of Sukhdeo Paswan and ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and ors. [1993(2) Patna Law Journal Reports, 211] and Dinesh Murmu and others V/s. The State of Bihar and ors. [1998(1) Patna Law Journal Reports 110]. 7. The order impugned at the face of it shows that the claim of the petitioner was vexatious and under a garb of a land grab movement several applications were filed together seeking relief against the common land holder. The findings arrived at by the Collector, therefore, are not assailable on the ground urged by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 8. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, I do not find any merit in this application. It is, thus, dismissed, but without costs.