The Collector under the Act has the discretion to entertain applications under Section 48E(1) of the Bihar Tenancy Act after giving an opportunity of hearing to the landlord, and the Collector's findings on the merits of the applications are not subject to judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India unless they are mala fide, illegal, or irrational.

S.B.SINHA, J.

1. This application is directed against an order dated 8-10-1991 passed in Bataidari case No. 100 of 1991 and other analogous case whereby the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Manjhaul had dismissed the application of all the petitioners by a common order.

2. The petitioners claimed themselves to be the agricultural labourers. According to them they are bataidars of the landlord for the last 13 years. The petitioners having been threatened with unlawful ejectment filed applications for a declaration that they are bataidars of the respondent No. 3.

3. The petitioners themselves have contended that 114 such applications has been, filed resulting in initiation of 114 different cases. The respondent No. 2 issued notice to the respondent No. 3 and allowed him to file documents.

4. By reason of the impugned order dated 8-10-1991, the Respondent No. 2 has come to the conclusion that the petitioners have failed to make out a case that they are bataidars of Respondent No. 3 and their claim is thus unfounded.

5. Mr. Binod Kumar Ambastha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that at the stage of entertaining the application under Sec. 48E (1) of the Bihar Tenancy Act a detailed enquiry was wholly unwarranted.

6. He further submitted that the respondent No. 3 is a big land holder and the proceedings under Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act is pending against him.

7. Sec. 48(E) of the Bihar Tenancy Act reads as follows:

"Prevention of threatened ejectment of under-raiyat and restoration to possession under-raiyat unlawfully ejected. (1) If an under-raiyat is threatened with. unlawful ejectment from his tenancy or any portion thereof by his landlord or if there is a dispute between them over the possession of land, crop or produce thereof either on the ground of non-existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between them or otherwise or if an under-raiyat is or has been ejected from his tenancy or any portion thereof within twelve years before the commencement of proceedings under this section in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 89 of the Collector may, of his own motion or on application made in this behalf by the under-raiyat, initiate a proceeding for preventing the landlord from ejecting the under-raiyat or for settlement of the said dispute or for restoration to possession under - raiyat unlawfully ejected from his tenancy or portion thereof."

From a bare perusal of the aforementioned provision there cannot be any doubt that a proceeding thereunder can be initiated if there exists a bonafide dispute.

8 The contentions raised in this application are no longer resintegra.

9. In Dhanji Singh V/s. State, reported in AIR 1979 Patna 259 (SB) : 1979 BBCJ (HC) 521, it has been held that it is for the Collector under the Act to satisfy himself on the basis of the information received by him or on the materials brought on records for arriving at a finding as to whether the dispute is bona fide one so as to warrant, initiation of a proceedings under Sec. 48E (1) of the said Act.

10. This aspect of the matter had again been considered in Bhaddo Uraon V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1988 BBCJ (HC) 711 wherein the fore mentioned Full Bench Judgment in Dhanjis Case (Supra) was analysed in the following terms:-

"It was stated in the judgment of B. P. Singha, J. in the same case viz Dhan Singh (Supra) that the Collector had to find out whether a prima facie case existed for initiation of proceeding under the said sec. 48E and as such the Collector could not prevent the opposite party from appearing before him to establish that such a prima facie case did not exist in favour of the applicant. It was observed in the judgment of P.S. Sahay J. also in the same case, that it should not be held that the opposite party had a right to appear before the Collector in all cases as a matter of right, though no hard and fast rule could be laid down in thi