Patna High Court
Madhukar Yadav @ Triveni YadavversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- KHATIM REZA
Holding
The order of the D.C.L.R. dated 01.12.2014 is set aside and the matter must be referred to a duly constituted Batai Board as required under Section 48(E) of the Bihar Tenancy Act.
Summary
Madhukar Yadav filed a petition under Section 48(E) of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 seeking declaration as a Raiyat (Bataidar) over land he had cultivated for over 55 years and to prevent alleged unlawful ejectment by the land holders. The Deputy Commissioner of Land Reforms (D.C.L.R.) rejected his application without referring the dispute to a Batai Board, as mandated by Section 48(E)(3). The petitioner contended that the D.C.L.R. acted contrary to the Special Bench decision in Dhanji Singh v. State of Bihar, which requires a prima facie finding of a Batai dispute and referral to a Board before any final order. The High Court held that the D.C.L.R.'s order was illegal because the Board was not constituted, and set aside the order, directing the matter to be referred to a duly constituted Batai Board. The writ petition was allowed, and the case was remitted for proper procedure.
Issues considered
- Whether the D.C.L.R. was required to refer the petition under Section 48(E) to a Batai Board before deciding the claim.
- Whether the order rejecting the petition without Board referral is legally sustainable.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the procedural requirements of the Bihar Tenancy Act.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 — s. 48(E), 48(E)(3), 48(E)(4)
Subjects
- Bihar Tenancy Act
- Section 48(E)
- Batai dispute
- Raiyat
- Under‑Raiyat
- Batai Board
- Land reform
- Writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2511 of 2015
======================================================
Madhukar Yadav @ Triveni Yadav, son of Late Punai Yadav, resident of
Village-Purushottampur, P.S. & Anchal-Asarganj, Dist.-Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Munger.
2. The Land Reforms Deputy Commissioner, Tarapur, Munger.
3. The Circle Officer, Tarapur, Munger.
4. Baida Singh, son of Late Mathura Singh
5. Baua Singh, son of Late Mahesh Singh
6. Manoranjan Singh, son of Late Nandan Singh
7. Niranjan Singh, son of Late Nandan Singh
8. Bindeshwari Yadav, son of Late Paran Yadav,
All residents of Village and P.O.-Ganganiya, P.S. and Anchal-Sultanganj,
Dist.-Bhagalpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abdul Mannan Khan, Adv.
Mr. Binay Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Shive Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Dr. Mankeshwar Tiwari, AC to AAG-3
Ms. Divya Verma, AC to AAG-3
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Subhash Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Private Respondent/s: Mr. Sudhir Kumar Vishnu, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
ORAL ORDER
7 07-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent
nos. 4 to 8.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
01.12.2014 passed in Tenancy Case No. 01 of 2013-14 by
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2015(7) dt.07-04-2026
2/7
the respondent-D.C.L.R., Tarapur, Munger, as contained in
Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereby, the petition filed
on behalf of the petitioner under Section 48(E) of the Bihar
Tenancy Act, 1885 (in short B.T. Act) for his declaration as
Raiyat for the land in question, has been rejected without
referring the matter to the Board under Section 48(E)(3) of
the B.T. Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a petition under
Section 48(E) of the B.T. Act for his declaration as under-
Raiyat (Bataidar) over the land in question and also for
preventing the land holders from unlawful ejectment from
his tenancy over the land in question on the basis of which
Tenancy Case No. 01 of 2013-14 was instituted. Upon
considering the aforesaid application, the learned D.C.L.R.,
Tarapur, Munger, initiated a proceeding for preventing the
landlord from ejecting the petitioner under-Raiyat of the
land in question. Accordingly, the notices were issued to the
land holders (Raiyat). It is further pleaded that there was a
bonafide Batai dispute between the parties. It is further
stated that the petitioner has been cultivating the land in
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2015(7) dt.07-04-2026
3/7
question for more than 55 years since the lifetime of the
petitioner’s father and was giving half share of the crops to
the land holders-respondent nos. 4 to 7. In the year 2013-14,
he had sown and grown the aforesaid land, but the
D.C.L.R., Tarapur, Munger had illegally seized the entire
paddy crops through the C.O., Asarganj, which were being
harvested by the petitioner. The crops are lying in the
‘Khaliyan’(where harvested crops are stored), which is in
the custody of C.O., Asarganj. It is further contended that
respondent nos. 4 to 7 are trying to disturb the peaceful
possession of the petitioner over the land in question and
threatened with unlawful ejectment from the said land.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the learned D.C.L.R. without constituting the Board as
provided under Sub-section (3) of Section 48(E) of the B.T.
Act rejected the application filed under Section 48(E) of the
Act and further held that the claim of the petitioner as
‘Bataidar’ has not been proved by the petitioner.
5. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel
for the petitioner in the case of Dhanji Singh Vs. The State
of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1979 PLJR 247, wherein, a
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2015(7) dt.07-04-2026
4/7
Special Bench of this Court has held that a proceeding
under Section 48E can be initiated only after the Collector
is satisfied that one of the three requisite conditions
mentioned in the section exists. On what material and in
what manner the Collector shall be satisfied about existence
of one or the other requisite conditions for initiation of the
proceeding, no hard and fast rule can be laid down. It will
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and also
he must refer the matter to the Board and the Board shall be
constituted under the provision of the Act. Therefore, the
Collector under the B.T. Act ought to have referred the
matter to the duly constituted Batai Board in terms of
Section 48 (E) (3) and (4) of the B.T. Act and only after
recommendation of the Batai Board, final order could have
been passed by the respondent-D.C.L.R. either accepting
the claim raised on behalf of the petitioner or rejecting his
claim, but at that stage, the respondent-D.C.L.R. could not
have converted the aforesaid proceeding in a mini trial and
could not have decided the Batai claim of the petitioner on
merits at the stage of Section 48(E)(1) of the B.T. Act.
According to him, the impugned order passed by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2015(7) dt.07-04-2026
5/7
respondent-D.C.L.R. is in the teeth of the Special Bench
Case on the basis of judicial pronouncement made by the
Special Bench of this Court.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for
respondent nos. 4 to 8 submits that writ application is not
maintainable. According to them after rejection of the order
passed under Section 48(E), the petitioner has to file appeal
before the competent authority and there is no relationship
between the land holder (raiyat) and Bataidar (under-raiyat)
and denied the claim of the petitioner as Bataidar.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on analysis of the averments in the writ application as
well as the impugned order passed by the D.C.L.R.,
Tarapur, Munger as contained in Annexure-1, this Court is
of the opinion that the impugned order dated 01.12.2014
passed by the respondent-D.C.L.R., Tarapur, Munger cannot
be sustained in the eye of law. The Special Bench of this
Court in the case of Dhanji Singh (supra) has laid down
the principle in paragraph nos. 7, 8 and 11 that once a
petition under Section 48 (E) of the B.T. Act is filed by any
claimant, then the Collector under the B.T. Act is required
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2015(7) dt.07-04-2026
6/7
to find out only prima facie case of bonafide Batai dispute
between the parties. If the Collector under the B.T. Act finds
that there is prima facie case of bonafide Batai dispute
between the parties then the matter is required to be referred
to duly constituted Board and only after recommendation of
Batai Board after following the procedure prescribed under,
the final order can be passed but at that stage the landlord
cannot be permitted to convert the initiation of proceeding
in a mini trial or a parallel inquiry and without constitution
of Batai Board, the order passed by the D.C.L.R., Tarapur,
Munger is not tenable in the eye of law.
8. Having regard to the discussions made
hereinabove, the impugned order dated 01.12.2014 passed
in Tenancy Case No. 01 of 2013-14 by the respondent-
D.C.L.R., Tarapur, Munger as contained in Annexure-1 to
the writ petition is, hereby, set aside and the matter is
remitted to the respondent-D.C.L.R., Tarapur, Munger with
a direction to refer the matter to a duly constituted Batai
Board, whereafter, the matter shall be decided in accordance
with law after following the procedure prescribed under
B.T. Act and rules made thereunder after due notice to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2015(7) dt.07-04-2026
7/7
parties.
9. In order to expedite the matter, the petitioner is
directed to appear before the respondent-D.C.L.R., Tarapur,
Munger, within a period of six weeks from today alongwith
a certified copy of this order, whereafter, the respondent-
D.C.L.R., Tarapur, Munger shall call upon the parties to
nominate their Panches and thereafter, the matter shall be
referred to duly constituted Batai Board for deciding in
accordance with law.
10. In the result, the writ application is allowed to
the extent indicated above.
(Khatim Reza, J)
prabhat/-
U
Checking your session…