ORDER
Aftab Alam, J.
1. Heard Mr. Vinay Kant Mani Tripathi on behalf of the petitioners in the three writ petitions. No one appears for private respondents 4 and 5 in the three cases.
2. These three cases are filed by different petitioners but they are against the same respondents, namely, Kulpatiya Devi and Raghunath Singh (respondents 4 and 5 in all the cases) and seek to challenge the same order, dated 20.1.1989 passed by the D.C.L.R. Incharge, Siwan.
3. These writ petitions arise from Bataidari proceedings and the petitioners in each of the three cases claim Bataidari rights in respect of certain lands held by respondents 4 and 5.
4. It appears that these three cases were left out while seven other cases filed on behalf of other Bataidars against the same impugned order were disposed of (allowed) by judgment and order, dated 11.2.1998.
5. Ten people, including the three petitioners in these three cases, filed petitions under Section 48E of the Act against respondents 4 and 5 claiming Bataidari rights in respect of different pieces of land and on the plea that the land holders were trying to evict them from their respective lands through illegal means. The cases were registered separately but were dealt with together. By the impugned order the D.C.L.R. rejected all the claims mainly on the ground that respondent No. 4 was a widow and the total land held by her was less than five acres. The D.C.L.R. took the view that no claim of Bataidari was, therefore, maintainable against her. As the common order was passed disposing of ten separate cases, the Bataidars filed ten seperate writ petitions. Seven of those writ petitions being CWJC No. 4980 of 1989 and six other ana. cases were taken up on 11.2.1998. A learned Judge of the court found and held that the fact that respondent No. 4 held lands less than five acres in area might be a relevant consideration under Section 48C but it was of no consequence in a proceeding under Section 48E of the Act. The learned Judge, accordingly, set aside the order, dated 20.1.1989 passed by the D.C.L.R. in those seven Bataidari cases and remitted the matter to him to decide the claims of the petitioners in those cases, in accordance with law.
6. In light of the above these three writ petitions must also be disposed of in the same terms.
7. The order, dated 20.1.1989 passed by the D.C.L.R. in the respective Bataidari cases are accordingly set aside and the matters are remitted to the D.C.L.R., Siwan to decide the claim of the petitioners on merits following the procedure laid down under the different such Sections of Section 48E of the Act.
8. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed but with no order as to costs.