N. Pandey, J.

This writ application has been filed for quashing of an order dated 14.8.1982 (Annexure 3) whereby, the Deputy Collector, Land Refonns (Respondent no. 1) has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under section 48E of the Bihar Tenmcy Act, 1885 (hereinafter) referred to as the Act.

2. The petitioner filed an application be fore the Anchaladhikari, Dinara, stating of therein that he was the under raiyat of Kashi Sah (respondent no. 3) with respect to the land in dispute since last 24 years. It was alleged that the respondent along with their supporters, were trying to disposess him from the land in question. A prayer was made to restrain in the respondents from interfering with his possession. The Anchaladhikari through his letter dated 3.6.1982 send the application of the petitioner before the Deputy Collector, Land Refonn (DCLR) for proper action. Upon receipt of the application of the petitioner, the D.C.L.R. by his order dated 25.6.1982 issued notices to both the parties to show cause why a proceeding under section 48e of the Act be not initiated.

3. On 13.7.1982, the D.C.L.R. directed the Anchaladhikari and the Officer Incharge of Dinara to see that the petitioner is not dispossessed from the land. These after, respondent no.3 appeared and filed his show cause denying the claim of the petitioner that he was an under-raiyat with respect to the land in question. It was also pointed out that out of the three plots over which the petitioner has raised dispute, two plots, that is, plot nos. 630 and 535 appertaining to khata no. 159 belong to Radha Krishna Prasad and this respondent had no concern with such land. The respondent no.3 only claimed plot no. 1595 khata no. 159. In the petition which was filed for initiating a proceeding, respondent no. 3 Kashi Sah was shown as landlord of all the three plots.

4. The D.C.L.R., after examining the show cause of respondent no.3 and hearing the parties, was not satisfied about the existence of any of the conditions for initiation of a proceeding under section 48E of the Act. He also noticed that in the application the petitioner had shown respondent no. 3 as landlord of all the three plots where as according to respondent no. 3 he had right, title and Possession only over plot no. 1495 and other two plots belong to Radha Krishan Prasad. Taking all the facts into consideration, the application of the petitioner for initiating the proceeding was rejected by the impugned order.

5. Mr. B.P. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is completely illegal. In order to find out a prime facie case, and bona-fide dispute, between the parties, it was not open to the D.C.L.R. to hold an inquiry. An inquiry whether, the petitioner was under-raiyat of respondent no. 2 could only be made by the Board constituted under section 48E of the Act. The D.C.L.R. could not have assumed jurisdiction of a Board for such purposes. He contended that law does not permit two inquiries one by the D.C.L.R. and the other by a Board. In support of his contention, he placed reliance over in the case of Dhanji Singh v State of Bihar & others (AIR 1979 Patna 259) and Lakshmi Prasad Bhagat and anr. v. State of Bihar & others (1978 BBCJ 750).

6. Mr. Kamla Pati Singh, Senior counsel appearing for respondent no. 3. On the other hand, submitted that the D.C.L.R. while performing the function of a Collector under the Act, in a proceeding like this, on the basis of relevant materials on the record, has to be satisfied about the existence of requisite conditions for initiation a proceeding under Section 48E of the Act. According to him, at this stage, the D.C.L.R. is not required to act as Post Office. He has to find out either on the basis of an application filed by an under raiyat a prime facie case for initiating a proceedings (sick) In support of his contention of M/s Jute and Gunny Brothers (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & others Vs. Land Reforms Deputy Col