Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Being aggrieved, the respondents filed an appeal before the Collector which was allowed vide common order dated 12.9.1991. The land owners filed C.W.J.C. No.7105 of 1991 and other analogous cases. It is relevant to state herein that the respondent Bataidar too filed writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 5917 of 1997 (Jageshwar Ram & Ors vs. State of Bihar & Ors) against original order of D.C.L.R. dismissing their Bataidari Case under section 48E of the Act on the ground of there being lack of bonafide dispute.

All the writ petitions, including both filed by land owner and the Bataidars came to be heard and decided on 3.8.1992. The writ application of the land owners bearing C.W.J.C. No.7105 of 1991 and analogous cases were allowed and the order of District Collector was set aside on merit.

On the other hand, the writ petition filed by the Bataidar namely C.W.J.C. No.5971 of 1992 was dismissed. While allowing writ application of the land owner, the Division Bench noticed a number of past litigations which had taken place between the parties including filing of Title Suit which had gone in favour of the land owners. The details of dispute has been rendered in paragraph 4 of the order of Division Bench which is also reported in 1993(2) BLJ 476 (Bijendra Kumar Narayan vs State of Bihar). Strangely enough, after dismissal of the writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 5971 of 1992, the Bataidars started a second round of litigation by once again filing Bataidari Cases, 28 in numbers, in the year 1994-95.

Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was not permissible for the Bataidars to file all over again Bataidari Case under Section 48 of the B.T. Act once it was settled up to the High Court. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the Bataidari Case filed by most of them on similar ground was rejected and affirmed up to the High Court by a Division Bench it was no longer open for the S.D.O., who had stepped into the shoe of the D.C.L.R., to entertain the matter again and again.

I find substance in the submission of Mr. Shahi. The issue in hand so far these two writ applications are concerned, is already covered by the aforesaid Division Bench order reported in 1993(2) BLJ 476. I find that the subsequent Bataidari application on the basis of more or less similar facts which was earlier had gone up to the High Court and decided in favour of land owners are not maintainable and barred under the principle of res judicata.