JAGDISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and Respondent No. 4.

(2.) A Bataidari case was preferred by Respondent No. 4 before the D.C.L.R., Naugachia. The claim was rejected. An appeal was then preferred by Respondent No. 4 before the Collector, Bhagalpur, which came to be allowed by order dated 21.5.2004 holding him to be a Bataidar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Bataidari claim of Respondent No. 4 came to be rejected on 20.6.2001 arriving at a prima facie finding that the claim was not maintainable. The order was, therefore, one under Section 48E(1) of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act '). This order was not appealable under Section 48F of the Act. An appeal lay only against an order passed under sub -section (8) of Section 48E of the Act. He placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court Shivanandan Roy & Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors., 1979 0 PLJR 475 in support of his submissions.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for Respondent No. 4 in support of the impugned order submitted that the D.C. L.R. was not correct in rejecting the Bataidari claim at the very initial stage without referring the matter to the Conciliation Board. The appellate authority for this reason after discussion of the materials placed before him arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner was a Bataidar and allowed the appeal. In any event, no objection had been raised by the petitioner of the nature presently sought to be urged of lack of jurisdiction before the appellate authority.