K.B.Sinha, J.

1. All these writ applications are founded on almost same Bet of the facts and the points of law, involved for determination, are common. They were heard together with consent of the parties and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. For the sake of brevity, the facts of C.W.J.C. No. 4812 of 1982 and the statements made in the affidavit under reply are placed herebelow. Besides this, additional facts, disclosed in other petitions and affidavits filed in reply, will be noticed at the appropriate stage.

3. All the petitioners, alongwith some others, jointly filed an application on 1.6.1973 before respondent No. 2. the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Patna, (hereinafter referred to as the D.C.L.R.) under Sec. 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the B.T. Act), claiming right of under-raiyats (Bataidars) against respondent No. 4 and making complaint of threatened unlawful ejectment from the lands under dispute. On the basis of said application, Case No. 9 of 1973-74 was registered in the court of respondent No. 2, the D.C.L.R. The dispute was with respect to 7.66 acres of land of plot No. 516, appertaining to Khata No. 6, plots No. 521, 529, 530, 537, 512, 519, 520 and 533, appertaining to Khata No. 7, situated in village Saichak and plat No. 90, appertaining to Khata No. 340, situated in village Nathopur within Phulwari Anchal in the district of Patna. The petitioners had laid claim over different parts of the said plots and it was stated that they were in possession as under-raiyats (Bataidars) since long. Upon receipt of the said application, a Board was constituted as provided under Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Sec. 48-B of the B.T. Act. The Board submitted its report in favour of the petitioners, which was accepted by respondent No. 2, the D.C.L.R., on 29.11.1973. The ratyat, respondent No. 4, filed an appeal before the Collector, Patna, which was dismissed oa 7.2.977. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 filed C.W.J.C. No. 550 of 1978 in this Court, in which parties were heard and the application was allowed on 7.3.1980. While quashing the order under challenge in that writ application, this Court directed the D.C.L.R. to initiate fresh proceedings in the name of the petitioners separately. According to the direction of this Court, the D.C.L.R. started fresh proceedings separately in the name of the petitioners. As regards this petition (C.W.J.C. No 4812/82), Case No. 4 of 1980-81 was registered by respondent No. 2. Again a Board was constituted with respondent No. 3, the Anchaladhikari, Phulwarisharif, Patna, as its Chairman. Respondent No. 4 nominated a Panch of his own choice. The petitioners also nominated their Panches. The Board did not succeed in bringing about an amicable settlement of the dispute and, thus, it made enquiry into the matter and submitted its report on 12.1.1982 in favour of the petitioners. A copy of the report Aas been filed as Annexure-1 of the petition. On receipt of the recommendation of the Board notices were issued to the parties by the D.C.L.R. Respondent No. 4 filed objection against the recommendation of the Board, stating, inter alia, that no endeavour was made by the Board for an amicable settlement of the dispute and the enquiry was concluded within only one day. One of the points, raised on behalf of respondent No. 4, was that he was possessed of only 7.33/1/2 acres of unirrigated lands and, thus, the provision of Sec. 48-E of the B.T. Act was not attracted to his case. He filed affidavits of several persons before respondent No. 2.

4. While the matter was pending before the D.C.L.R., respondents No. 5 to 9 appeared before him and on their prayer, they were added as parties to the proceeding. They claimed that they had purchased about 3 acres and 80 decimals of land from respondent No. 4 before initiation of the proceeding under Section 48-E of the B.T. Act by a registered sale-deed on 15.3.1973 and once then they had been in cultivating possession of