HARI LAL AGRAWAL, J.

1. This writ application arises out of a proceeding under S.48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, and a learned single Judge has referred it to a Division Bench, as it raises interpretation of sub-sec. (10) of S.48E as well as some other questions of law, for their authoritative decision.

2. The relevant facts are these. A proceeding was started in the year 1968 on the application of Bhukhan Mahto, respondent No. 4, before the Anchal Adhikari, Itarhi, claiming bataidari rights in respect of certain agricultural lands under khata Nos. 33 and 34, situate in village Madandehra. A long history has been given in the writ petition in support of the claim of under-raiyat by respondent No. 4, with which we are not concerned very much for the question for our consideration.

The Anchal Adhikari by his order dt. 6-1-1969 referred the records of the proceeding to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Buxar, respondent No. 2, who his turn, constituted a Bataidari Board, the Board submitted its ex parte report dt. 29-6-1973 against the petitioners. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 2 had constituted the Board without following the prescribed procedure and the Board also submitted its report in the same manner. Accordingly the petitioners came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2283 of 1977 and this Court by its judgment dt. 9-2-1979 allowed the writ application and quashed the report and the order of the Deputy Collect or based on the said report, and remanded the matter to him for "fresh constitution of the Board and to proceed with the matter in accordance with law".

Thereafter the second Bataidari Board was constituted under the chairmanship of respondent No. 3, the Assistant Project Executive Officer, Itarhi, after this Courts order. Respondent No. 3 submitted his report (Annexure 1) on 9-5-1980 after a long delay of more than two years, partly in favour of respondents 4 and 5, stating that respondent No. 5 was in possession of only 81 decimals of plot No. 72 and 72 decimals of plot No. 263. On the basis of this report, the Sub-divisional Officer, Buxar, passed an interim order on 30-7-1982 directing the petitioners not to disturb the possession of respondents 4 and 5. The petitioners challenged that order also in C.W.J.C. No. 3468 of 1982 as without jurisdiction which was allowed on 28-2-1983 and the order of the Sub-divisional Officer was quashed.

Thereafter respondent No. 2 by his order dt. 13-1-1983 ordered for constitution of a Third Board on the ground that the report of the Second Bataidari Board was submitted after more than two years, i.e., much beyond the prescribed period of six months. But by a subsequent order dt. 10-2-1983 (Annexure 4) he recalled that order dt. 31-1-1983 (Annexure 3) on the objection of the bataidars, and directed the parties to appear before him on 21-2-1983 for a settlement. The petitioners have filed this application for quashing these orders contained in Annexures 3 and 4 and their argument is that the report submitted by the Second Bataidari Board on 9-5-1980 could not be held to be invalid in law simply because it was submitted after a period of six months prescribed therefor. In other words, the argument is that the period of six months fixed for submission of the report by the Board under sub-sec (10) of S.48E was not mandatory and the Collector was not bound to recall the records from the Board.

3. Yet another ancillary argument urged on behalf of the petitioners in this regard is that after the receipt of the report respondent No. 2 having acted on that basis for a lone time - over 2« years, he could not go behind the said report and declare it invalid.

4. No counter-affidavit has been filed but the questions of facts are not in dispute. In order to answer the question I may refer to some of the relevant provisions of S.48E of the Act. According to the provisions of sub-sec. (3) when a proceeding is initiated under sub-sec. (1), the Collector may refer the matter (dispute