The Collector's power under Sec.48-E of the Bihar tenancy Act is limited to initiating a proceeding and referring the dispute to a Board. The Collector is not authorized to hold a preliminary enquiry or an enquiry within an enquiry.

D. P. Wadhwa, Aftab Alam, J.

1. This appeal, at the instance of an under raiyat, is directed against a judgment and order dated December 5,1994 passed by a learned single Judge of this court, dismissing CWJC No.843/1983 filed by the appellant.

2. The appellant filed an application under Sec.48-E of the Bihar tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) before the Circle Officer, dinara claiming that for the past 24 years he was the under raiyat of Kashi sah (respondent No.3) in respect of three plots of land. The Circle Officer forwarded the application to the Deputy collector Land Reforms, Sasaram who on 25-6-1982 issued notices to both the parties to show cause why a proceeding under Sec.48-E of the Act be not initiated. On 13-7-1982, the Deputy collector Land Reforms passed an order, directing the Circle Officer and the Officer Incharge, Dinara Police Station to ensure that the appellant was not dispossessed from the disputed land. Later, respondent No.3 appeared before the Deputy Collector Land reforms and denied the claim of bataidari raised against him by the appellant. It was stated on behalf of respondent No.3 that the appellants claim was falsified by the fact that he had described him (respondent No.3)as the landlord in respect of all the three plots in dispute. According to respondent No.3, only plot No.1595 appertaining the khata No.159, belonged to him and he had no concern with the other two plots in dispute, i. e. plot Nos.620 and 635 of the same khata which belonged to another person radha Krishna Prasad.

3. On such a plea being raised, the deputy Collector Land Reforms became satisfied that the appellants claim was not bona fide and hence by order dated 14-8-1982 he rejected the petition filed by him even without constituting a board and referring the dispute to it.

4. The appellant challenged the order passed by the Deputy Collector land Reforms before this Court in cwjc No.843 of 1983. Relying upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in dhanji Singh V/s. State of Bihar and others, air 1979 Patna 259 :1979 BLJ 621, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the Deputy Collector Land reforms in rejecting his claim without constituting a Board and referring the bataidari dispute to it had exceeded his jurisdiction, inasmuch as his action amounted to holding an enquiry to which he was not authorised in law.

5. On behalf of the respondent No.3, it was submitted that the Deputy Collector Land Reforms was fully entitled to be satisfied that the claim raised by the appellant was bona fide and it was not frivolous or malicious and unless the Deputy Collector Land Reforms was so satisfied, he was not obliged to initiate a proceeding under Sec.48-E of the Act and to constitute a Board for referring the dispute to it. The submission was supported by the decisions of this Court in M/s Jute and Gunny brokers (Pvt) Ltd. V/s. The State of Bihar and others, 1976 B. B. C. J.48 and Beuni yadav and others V/s. Land Reforms deputy Collector, Madhubani and others, 1981 PLJR 433. On a consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the learned single Judge found and held as under: "from a bare reference to the relevant provisions of the Act as also the judgment of the Full Bench as noticed above, it is evident that the Collector is not bound to initiate a proceeding no sooner an application is filed on behalf of an under raiyat. He has to apply his judicial mind and in appropriate cases, he may reject such a prayer. The reference of the dispute under the Act before the board is not automatic and without application of mind. It is well known where a particular Act vests power in an authority to initiate or not to initiate a proceeding on its own. It cannot be said that such opinion can be recorded- without application of mind to the facts of the case. As I have already noticed, Mr. Verma has unnecessarily made a grievance saying that the D. C. L. R. conducted an enquiry as prescribed under t