Hari Lal Agrawal, J.

1. This application is on behalf of under-raiyats and is directed against the order of the Land Reforms deputy Collector, Madhubani (Respondent no. V), dated 27th July, 1979, contained in Annexure 1. By this order the Deputy Collector has held that the petitioners had failed to make out a prima facie case with respect to their rights calling for any investigation.

2. It appears from the order, and which is not controverted, that all the petitioners on an earlier occasion had filed bataidari cases in the year 1973-74 against the same landlord. The dispute was referred to the Bataidari board and their claim was found to be false. The order of the Deputy collector was also confirme on appeal. An attempt was made also in this court to challenged the said order by filing a writ application (C. W. J. C. No.1680 of 1977), but, as I am informed, the said application was dismissed for non-compliance of some per-emptory order. The learned Deputy Collector has also observed in his order that they had also lost a criminal case under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the year 1974 and in the sessions Trial also the claim of one of the petitioners, namely, Ramdeo Yadav,over plot no.6683 was not found established in the sessions case, being sessions Trial No.97/77-78 by the Sessions Judge, Madhubani. He has also referred to the fact that the bataidars also failed to establish their claim over the lands in dispute before the survey authorities.

3. The above order is challenged by the petitioners on the following facts and circumstances : on the filing of the cases by the petitioners, the Deputy Collector by an earlier order dated 3rd May, 1979 had issued a notice of the proceeding to the landlord asking him to nominate his Panch and accordingly after receipt of the notice the landlord appeared in the proceeding and filed a petition for dropping the same on the ground that it was mala fide. On these facts and circumstances he has come to the conclusion, as already said earlier, that the claim was not genuine.

4. The proposition that a Collector under the provisions of the fact has to apply his mind and to initiate a proceeding only after he feels satisfied that a prima facie case calling for an investigation of the dispute cannot be questioned in view of the Full bench Case of Dhanji Singh V/s. State of Bihar and others (AIR 1979 Patna 259 ). Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, however, submitted that, inasmuch as, the Deputy Collector had already initiated the proceeding by his order dated 3rd May, 1975, he had no jurisdiction to re-examine the question and that after the proceeding was initiated, it was bound to proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under the various sub-sections of Sec.118 E of the Act and the Rules. The argument as put forward cannot be doubted as such but looking to the facts and the circumstances of the present case it has got to be rejected. The order dated 3rd May, 1973, on which the argument of the learned counsel is based, appears to be the very first order that was passed on receipt of the application by one of the petitioners, namely, Sonal Yadav, and nothing the fact of the filing of the claim against the landlord the Deputy collector without staling any word further passed the following order :

"dono pakchon Bhu Swami Ko soochna den ki vey dinank 15-5- 9 ko 7-00/ 0-30 baje subha din main upasthit hokar mamley key nispadan haitoo parshid key gathan key liye sadasya ka naamden,"

(In Hindi)The landlord on receipt of the notice appeared and applied for time for filing objection and on the next dale, thereafter, filed a rejoinder for rejection of the application, The hearing took place on 12th June, 1979 and both the parties participated in the said hearing. From the order-sheet it does not appear that the petitioners had taken any exception to the procedure followed by Deputy (ollector, as stated above. In the writ application, however, it has been said that they partici