Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The private respondents have pleaded that they did not have any knowledge about the proceeding before the Board."
15. In case of Sukhdeo Pandit (supra), the Division Bench has clearly held as noted above that bataidari is primarily an agreement between the raiyat and under raiyat (bataidar), Patna High Court L.P.A No.453 of 2019 dt.11-01-2024 which agreement subsists till the said bataidar is in cultivating possession of the said land and he pays to the landlord the produce-rent for the land held by him. In case of Kartik Singh and Another (supra) also this Court has held that in order to become an under raiyat, there must be some element of agreement or contract between the raiyat and under raiyat and no person can be held to be under raiyat if he has occupied the land without any such agreement.
16. Considering the background of the propositions of law, as noted above, for the present adjudication, I reiterate that the petitioner's case that he was in cultivating possession as an under raiyat, immediately after his father died in the year 2002, cannot be said to have been accepted by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms and the Collector, Purnia, since the petitioner has been held by them to be bataidar with effect from 26.04.2003. Even if it is accepted that the petitioner's father was a bataidar of respondent No.5 as on the date of his death, the Patna High Court L.P.A No.453 of 2019 dt.11-01-2024 bataidari agreement, if any, lost its force on the date of his death. There is no material indicated in the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms and the Collector, Purnia, to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner entered into bataidari agreement with the landlord (respondent No.5). In addition to the above, I do not find any illegality in the reason assigned by the Tribunal that there was complete absence of attempts for conciliation, which also rendered the order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms illegal.
18. For the reasons aforesaid, no interference with the impugned decision of the Tribunal is required.
19. This application is accordingly Patna High Court L.P.A No.453 of 2019 dt.11-01-2024 dismissed."

10. Aggrieved, the present appeal.

11. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petition was dismissed on erroneous finding that he was only seven years old at the time of death of his father and as such could not have done 'bataidari'. On the contrary, he was twenty nine years old in the year 2002 and affidavit to this effect was also given.

14. The Learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that the DCLR has not acknowledged that on the day of his death, the appellant-petitioner's father who was also a 'bataidar' to which he immediately succeeded. In that background 'the Tribunal' rightly allowed the case of the respondent no. 5.

15. We have gone through the facts of the case and we have no hesitation in accepting the stand of the respondent no. 5 that 'bataidari' is primarily an agreement between the raiyat and under raiyat which subsists till the 'bataidar' is cultivating the land and paying the produce-rent to the landlord for the said land. The 'bataidari' right cannot be inherited unless an under raiyat acquires the rights of an occupancy raiyat within the meaning of section 48D of 'the Act'.