K. B. N. Singh, B. S. Sinha, J.

1. In all these 23 writ applications, the petitioner is the same and, as common question of law and fact arises, with consent of parties, they have been heard together and are being diposed of by this common order.

2. Forty-seven under-raiyats claiming bataidari rights in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioner filed an application under section 48-E of the bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) relating to different parcels of jand appertaining to khata no.3, situate in village Sibsona, p. s. Halsi, in the district of Monghyr. The Land Refoms Deputy Collector, Jamui, respondent no.3, who has the power of a Collector for the purpose of section 48-E ana before whom the application was filed, constituted a Board under sub-section (3) of section 48-E of the Act and referred the dispute to it for settlement between the claimants (under-raiyats) and the petitioner. The Board, by a common order, dated the 4th May, 1975, found the claim of the under raiyats, in respect of fortyseven cases, to be false. A copy of the Boards report has been filed as Annexure i to the writ applications. On receipt of the recommendation of the Board, respondent no.3, by order dated the 24th May, 1975, issued directions for the hearing of the parties and for examination of the witnesses. On the 26th august, 1975, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner-landlord for local inspection. Thereafter, the D. C. L. R. (respondent no.3) held local inspection and also examined a number of witnesses and, finally, by his order dated the 26th december, 1975. found that the claim of the bataidars in respect of eight cases, viz. Betaidari Case nos.28, 42, 49, 20, 57, 37, 26 and 41 of 1974-75, was false,. with regard to the remaining forty cases, the D. C. L. R. (respondent no.3)accepted the claim of the bataidars, in disagreement with the finding of the Board, and declared their right of bataidari in respect of those cases. A copy of the common order passed by the D. C. L R. is Annexure 3 to all these writ applications. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid common order of the d. C. L. R. under section 48 E before the appellate authority in respect of twenty-four cases. They were heard by the Additional Collector, who dismissed them by separate orders, dated the 20 th luly, 1977, which are more or less in the same terms. A copy of the order is Annexure 4 in each of the writ applications. The petitioner thereafter filed twenty-four writ applications out of which only twenty-three have been placed for hearing, the remaining one not being ready for hearing.

3. Shri Jugal Kishore Prasad II, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has urged the following points in support of the writ application:

(i) The area of the plots being such larger than the area claimed by the bataidars, and there being no mention about the direction from which they laid claim, the identity of the land was vague and no valid or legal order could be passed in view of the vagueness of the area claimed. (ii) Respondent no.3 has not recorded any reason for the prima facie difference with the Boards finding before entering upon an inquiry in terms of sub-section (8) of section 48-E of the Act. (iii) Even in the final order passed by respondent no.3 or that passed by the Collector on appeal under section 48-F, no reason has been assigned for taking a different view than the one taken by the board for rejecting the claim of the bataidars.

4. The last two points raised by Shri Prasad may be taken up first. In order to appreciate the submission of learned counsel certain provisions of section 48-E of the Act may usefully be quoted. Where the Board fails in its endeavour to bring about an amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties, it has to follow the procedure as provided in sub section (7) of section 48-E, relevant portion of which reads as follows:-

" (7) Where a Board does not succeed in bringing abo