Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 672 (PAT)

Sitaram Chamaria v. State Of Bihar

2013-06-21

BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 21.10.2004 (Annexure-1) passed by respondent DCLR, Katihar in Bataidari Case No. 24 of 2003-04, whereby the petition filed by the respondent no.4 under Section 48E(1) of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (in short “the B.T. Act”) has been allowed and the respondent no.4 has been declared as “Bataidar” with respect to the lands in dispute, which have been detailed in the impugned order. 3. The bataidari claim of the respondent no.4 with respect to the lands in question has been allowed on the basis of the recommendation made by the duly constituted Batai Board. Admittedly, the order impugned is appealable under Section 48F of the B.T. Act. Apparently, the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory appellate remedy available to him. 4. The petitioner has also filed I.A. No. 3794 of 2006, whereby he has sought permission to amend the writ petition and further sought permission to challenge the validity of the order dated 17.04.2006 passed in Case No. 7/2005-06 by the Anchal Adhikari, Katihar, whereby petition filed on behalf of the respondent no.4 under Section 48D of the B.T. Act has been allowed and he has been declared raiyat with respect to the lands in question. Admittedly, the aforesaid order dated 17.04.2006 (Annexure-6) is also appealable under the provisions of the B.T. Act. 5. The disputed questions of facts raised herein in the present proceeding are required to be conclusively decided at the first instance by the duly constituted appellate authority under the provisions of the B.T. Act. The issues of facts cannot be properly and effectively decided in the present proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 48F of the B.T. Act before the appellate authority against the impugned order dated 21.10.2004 (Annexure-1) and with further liberty to file a separate appeal against the impugned order dated 17.04.2006 (Annexure-6) passed by the respondent Circle Officer, Katihar declaring the respondent no.4 as raiyat under Section 48D of the B.T. Act with respect to the lands in question. 7. 7. If such appeals are filed by the petitioner before the prescribed appellate authorities under the provisions of the B.T. Act, then the same shall be heard and decided on their own merits without being prejudiced by the present order. 8. If such separate appeals are filed within a period of one month from today by the petitioner before the prescribed appellate authorities and if it is found that the appeals have become time barred, then the appellate authorities shall take into consideration that under a bonafide legal advice, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court on 11.08.2005 and the same remained pending before this Court till date, and only thereafter the appellate authorities shall consider the prayer of the petitioner for condonation of delay and shall hear the matter on merit. Before deciding the appeals filed by the petitioner the concerned appellate authorities shall issue notice to the respondent no.4 and all other concerned persons and shall decide the appeals of the petitioner, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, expeditiously, preferably within a maximum period of six months from the date of filing of such appeals. 9. The writ application as also the interlocutory application stand finally disposed of with the observations and directions made above.