1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 4.11.2006 initiating Bataidari Case No. 2/06-07 and constitution of Board on an application made for the purpose by respondent No. 5 and requiring the petitioner to nominate his "Panch".

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners purchased the lands in

question by a registered title deed dated 16.12.1977 from one Mahesh Kant Jha. After such acquisition of title by them, on an application by the father of the respondent No.5 claiming his status as an under Raiyat of Mahesh Kant Jha and initiation of a proceeding under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act on 13.12.1979, the petitioners questioned the same in C.W.J.C. No. 535/80. This Court by order dated 3.12.1980 held hat by virtue of the deed dated 16.12.1977, the title now vested in the petitioners and not in the aforesaid Mahesh Kant Jha. The final orders passed against Mahesh Kant Jha was not binding on the petitioners as they had not been impleaded as parties in the proceedings. The petitioners shall therefore have unrestricted enjoyment on the lands purchased by them. This would, however, not bar a fresh proceeding by the aggrieved person under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act with regard to the lands in question.

4. The father of respondent No. 5 then signed a disclaimer on 1.12.2004 denying any tenancy rights of himself and his heirs or other rights upon the lands in question. Nonetheless, he made a fresh application for declaration of his tenancy rights. After hearing the parties the proceedings were dropped by an order dated 8.5.2005. This order attained finality when the father of the respondent No. 5 did not question the same. Reliance is further placed on a report of the D.C.L.R. dated 6.9.2006 to submit that there was no occasion for the respondent No. 5 to make any application afresh for grant of Bataidari rights. Nonetheless, an application came to be made on 4.11.2006 by the respondent No. 5 after the demise of his father.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submitted that after an application was made by an under Raiyat, the Collector recording his satisfaction under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act was required to constitute a board for reconciliation. This is what has been done and the petitioner has been required to nominate his Panch for the purpose. There is no illegality in the order requiring interference at this stage. The alleged disclaimer signed by his father was a forged document. The application by the respondent No.5 afresh was only in accordance with the observation made by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.535/80.

6. This Court has heard the counsel for the parties.

7. What is striking to this Court is the application for declaration as an under Raiyat and protection of tenancy rights by respondent No. 5 after the death of his father when the matter had attained finality during the lifetime of his father. The orders of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 535/80 cannot be construed as a carte blanche in so far as respondent No.5 is concerned. His depeased father did not layout any challenge to the documents of disclaimer in his lifetime.

8. Counsel for respondent No. 5 relied upon a Special Bench decision reported in 1979 B.B.C.J. 521 (Dhanji Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) in support of his submission that after an application was made, by an under Raiyat, the Collector had no option but to refer the matter for constitution of a Board to consider amicable settlement.

9. The submission on behalf of the Respondent No. 5 is too broad to be accepted and is not supported by the judgment of the Special Bench. What has been held therein is that the act of initiation of the proceeding is not mechanical but is based on the satisfaction of the Collector of the existence of circumstances prescribed by law for commencement of the same. It has been held