JUDGMENT : (PARTHA SARTHY, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I.A. no.1 of 2019 2. The instant application has been filed by the appellant praying for condoning the delay of 60 days in filing of the instant appeal. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that CWJC no.101 of 2019 having been dismissed on 15.4.2019, an application for obtaining the certified copy was made on 24.4.2019. On the same having been received on 15.5.2019, the appellant came to Patna on 20.5.2019 but no steps could be taken because of the summer vacation. After opening of the Court, he was advised to file an appeal against the impugned order. He took some time to arrange for money and thereafter finally approached his counsel and the appeal was finally filed. It is submitted that the delay was not intentional but occurred due to compelling circumstances. As such, the same be condoned. 4. The application for condonation of delay is opposed by learned counsel for the respondents who submits that no justifiable reason has been given for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. No explanation has been given as to why the appeal could not be prepared with the web copy and filed in time soon on obtaining the certified copy thereof. The explanation furnished are vague, sketchy and fit to be rejected. LPA no.813 of 2019 5. The instant appeal has been preferred against the order dated 15.4.2019 whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss CWJC no.7101 of 2019 filed by the writ petitioner-appellant. 6. The writ petitioner filed an application on 11.3.1999 under section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act (‘B.T. Act’ in short) to declare him as a kaiyami raiyat of the sikmi raiyat i.e. his uncle Ramphal Mandal. The case of the writ petitioner was that on the death of his uncle who died issueless, the writ petitioner and his two brothers inherited the rights and thus filed the said petition for being declared kaiyami raiyat. Objections were invited by the Circle Officer. The respondent nos.5 to 11 appeared and filed their objections wherein, besides other facts, stated that the uncle of the writ petitioner i.e. Ramphal Mandal on 30.7.1960 had executed a registered ladavinama in favour of the landlord. Objections were invited by the Circle Officer. The respondent nos.5 to 11 appeared and filed their objections wherein, besides other facts, stated that the uncle of the writ petitioner i.e. Ramphal Mandal on 30.7.1960 had executed a registered ladavinama in favour of the landlord. By order dated 27.2.1997, the Circle Officer rejected the petition of the writ petitioner against which he filed Review Appeal no.4 of 2009. The said appeal was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhamdaha (Purnea) by order dated 25.11.2017. The writ petitioner preferred B.L.T. Case no.204 of 2018 in the Bihar Land Tribunal which came to be rejected by the Tribunal on 24.10.2018. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the writ petitioner by filing CWJC no.7101 of 2019 which was dismissed by order dated 15.4.2019, against which the instant appeal has been preferred. 7. It was submitted by learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-appellant that the learned Single Judge as also the Tribunal had committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the appellant. It was submitted that once the bataidari case had been initiated, it was the statutory obligation of the authority to refer the dispute to a duly constituted Board for promoting settlement between the parties and not having done so, this order is not sustainable and fit to be set aside. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Dhanji Singh vs. The State of Bihar ( 1979 PLJR 247 ), Dilip Goswami vs. The State of Bihar [ 2003 (2) PLJR 211 ] and Smt. Poonam Kumari vs. The State of Bihar [ 2005 (2) PLJR 367 ]. 8. The application is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Bihar. In reference to the counter affidavit filed in the writ application it has been submitted that the writ petitioner filed Case no.19/1994-95 before the Circle Officer, Dhamdaha for being declared kaiyami raiyat over the land in question under section 48D of the B.T. Act. Objections were filed by the intervenors. After considering the documents on record and the report of the Halka Karamchari, the application was rejected by the Circle Officer on 27.2.1997. Appeal no.4 of 2009-10 preferred by the writ petitioner before the D.C.L.R., Dhamdaha was also dismissed on 25.11.2017. The writ petitioner moved the Bihar Land Tribunal in B.L.T. Case no.204 of 2018 which was dismissed on 24.10.2018. After considering the documents on record and the report of the Halka Karamchari, the application was rejected by the Circle Officer on 27.2.1997. Appeal no.4 of 2009-10 preferred by the writ petitioner before the D.C.L.R., Dhamdaha was also dismissed on 25.11.2017. The writ petitioner moved the Bihar Land Tribunal in B.L.T. Case no.204 of 2018 which was dismissed on 24.10.2018. Thereafter he approached this Court in CWJC no.7101 of 2019. While dismissing the writ application vide order dated 15.4.2019, this Court observed that the question of constitution of a Board under section 48E (3) of the B.T. Act would have arisen upon satisfaction of the claim of the writ petitioner of him being under-raiyat was bonafide. It is thus submitted that there is no merit in the appeal and the same be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The subject matter of the instant appeal is a land measuring an area of 3.79 acres appertaining to khesra nos.855, 856, 857 and 867, sikmi khata no.197, kaiyami khata no.230 in Mauja Kishanpur Balua and Thana no.179. The writ petitioner filed an application on 11.3.1999 under section 48D of the B.T. Act before the Circle Officer which was registered as Review Case no.19/1994-95 to declare him as kaiyami raiyat of the sikmi raiyat Ramphal Mandal, who was his uncle. It was the case of the writ petitioner that since 1940, his grandfather Late Banshi Mandal was the bataidar of the landlord, however he had not been issued/given any receipt. On death of his grandfather, his father Maharaj Mandal and uncle Ramphal Mandal remained in bataidari/cultivating possession. In the revisional survey, the name of one Birchand was recorded as kaiyami raiyat and the name of his uncle Ramphal Mandal as sikmi raiyat. Pratap Mandal who was son of Birchand executed a registered sale deed on 30.7.1960 in favour of the writ petitioner’s father. It is further stated that his uncle Ramphal Mandal had no issues and on his death, the writ petitioner and his two brothers inherited the land. 10. It further transpires that on objections being invited by the Circle Officer on the petition filed by the writ petitioner, intervention application was filed by the private respondents. It was the case of the private respondents that the land in question in Mauja Kishanpur Baluwa measured a total area of 7 acres 93 decimals. 10. It further transpires that on objections being invited by the Circle Officer on the petition filed by the writ petitioner, intervention application was filed by the private respondents. It was the case of the private respondents that the land in question in Mauja Kishanpur Baluwa measured a total area of 7 acres 93 decimals. Bir Narain Chand is recorded as kaiyami raiyat and the name of Ramphal Mandal is recorded as sikmi raiyat. Ramphal Mandal executed a ladavinama (deed of relinquishment) on 30.7.1960 in favour of the landlord Bir Narain Chand. An area of 3 bighas 9 kathas 19 dhurs out of 3 acres 91 decimals was sold by Bir Narain Chand to Maharaj Mandal on 8.11.1960. The rest land was purchased by Dilawar Yadav in the year 1962 vide registered sale deed no.4574/1962. The son of Dilawar Yadav namely Ghanshyam Yadav sold the land to the private respondents by different registered sale deeds in the year 1996. 11. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, the details of the land and the transactions brought on record in the intervention application filed by the private respondents and specially the deed of relinquishment executed by Ramphal Mandal on 30.7.1960 in favour of the landlord Bir Narain Chand, the Circle Officer was pleased to dismiss the petition filed by the writ petitioner under section 48D of the B.T. Act praying to declare him a kaiyami raiyat. The appeal preferred by the writ petitioner was dismissed on 25.11.2017 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhamdaha and thereafter the application preferred before the Bihar Land Tribunal vide B.L.T. Case no.204 of 2018 was also dismissed by the Tribunal on 24.10.2018. 12. On perusal of the order of the learned Tribunal, it transpires that the learned Tribunal had taken into account the deed of relinquishment executed on 30.7.1960 by the uncle of the petitioner namely Ramphal Mandal in favour of Bir Narain Chand. It also took note of the fact that while the father of the writ petitioner in the year 1962 had purchased lands from the raiyat Pratap Narain Chand, the said raiyat had also sold the disputed land in the year 1962 itself to Dilawar Yadav. Dilawar Yadav had been put in possession and his name was also mutated. It also took note of the fact that while the father of the writ petitioner in the year 1962 had purchased lands from the raiyat Pratap Narain Chand, the said raiyat had also sold the disputed land in the year 1962 itself to Dilawar Yadav. Dilawar Yadav had been put in possession and his name was also mutated. The writ petitioner in his application before the Circle Officer in the year 1994 made no claim against the said Dilawar Yadav which clearly showed that he had no knowledge of the actual raiyat nor did the writ petitioner claim any division of crop with the said Dilawar Yadav. The learned Tribunal dismissed the case filed by the writ petitioner by order dated 24.10.2018. Taking the aforesaid facts into consideration, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application holding the claim of the writ petitioner of being the under raiyat to be frivolous. 13. So far as the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant are concerned, in the case of Dilip Goswami (supra), this Court held that in a proceeding under section 48D of the B.T. Act, the right of the land holders gets extinguished and, therefore, it is of vital importance for the landlord that he has been given a proper opportunity to defend himself. In the case of Smt. Poonam Kumari (supra), this Court held that for declaration of sikmidar, one who claims his sikmi rights over a land must be in continuous possession of the land for 12 years on the date when he filed an application for declaration of his occupancy rights. There is no dispute with respect to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these two judgments, however thereof no assistance to the appellant in the facts of the instant case. 14. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant further placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Dhanji Singh (supra) to submit that the petition of the writ petitioner filed under section 48D of the B.T. Act should have been referred to the Board. It may be noted here that while section 48D of the B.T. Act deals with acquisition of the raiyat right by occupancy under raiyat, section 48E deals with prevention of threatened ejectment of under raiyat and restoration to possession of under raiyat unlawfully ejected. It may be noted here that while section 48D of the B.T. Act deals with acquisition of the raiyat right by occupancy under raiyat, section 48E deals with prevention of threatened ejectment of under raiyat and restoration to possession of under raiyat unlawfully ejected. While the case of Dhanji Singh related to exercise of powers by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sasaram under section 48E of the B.T. Act, so far as the instant case is concerned, the same started with an application by the writ petitioner filed on 11.3.1999 before the Circle Officer, Dhamdaha to declare him a kaiyami raiyat under section 48D of the B.T. Act. In the opinion of this Court, this judgment also is of no assistance to the writ petitioner-appellant in the facts of instant case. Further, the learned Single Judge also dealing with the issue of constitution of a Board under sub-section (3) of section 48E of the B.T. Act observed that the same would have arisen only upon satisfaction that the claim of the writ petitioner of his being under raiyat was bonafide. The said claim of the writ petitioner not having been found to be bonafide, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ application. 15. Thus for the aforesaid reasons, the Court finds that the appellant has neither made out a case for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal nor for interference on the merits of the appeal. Not finding any merit in the case, the appeal is dismissed. (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ): I agree.