The Collector's jurisdiction in a threshold enquiry under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act is limited to determining whether the claim is bona fide and not vexatious, malicious, or frivolous. The Collector cannot examine the claim and counterclaim of the parties in depth and appraise the evidence led on their behalf.

This writ petition has been filed on behalf of 41 persons whose application, filed under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, claiming under raiyat rights over different pieces of land belonging to respondent no. 3 was rejected by a common order dated 24.6.1996 passed by the D.C.L.R. Forbesganj in Case No. 770/1994-95. By the impugned order, the Collector, after hearing the parties, rejected the claim of the petitioners even without constituting a Board as provided under sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 48E. It is this order which comes under challenge in this writ petition.

2. Heard Mr. B.P. Verma, counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kamal Kishore Mishra, counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 at some length. Also perused the impugned order.

3. The impugned order is heavily burdened with quotations from judgments cited on behalf of respondent no. 3, the landlord. But the actual consideration of the matter appears to be very brief and the reason assigned by the 'Collector' for rejecting the claim even without constituting a Board boils down to this. It is stated that according to the counsel for the Opp. Party (respondent no. 3, the landlord), the Santhals (that is to say, the present petitioners) had forcibly occupied the disputed lands and the landlord had made complaints in this regard before the Minister, the District Magistrate and the Sub-divisional Officer. An enquiry was held on the complaint made by her and a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also initiated. In that proceeding a police report was received in which it was stated that in anticipation of the disputed lands being declared us surplus, in a land ceiling proceeding against the land holders, a number of Adivasis had started tilling the lands in the hope that those lands would be settled in their favour following their acquisition by the State Government. The 'Collector' simply added an observation that the report was jointly made by the officer In charge, Forbesganj police station and the Circle Officer, Forbesganj. In other words, the impugned order rejecting the petitioners' claim and declining to make a reference to the Bataidari Board was founded solely on the report alleging that the petitioners had forcibly occupied the disputed lands.

4. At this stage, it has to be noted that Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 invited my attention also to a letter dated 3.8.1994 written by the D.C.L.R., Forbesganj to the Circle Officer, Forbesganj. In this letter too, it is stated that on some lands, which were earlier taken in acquisition in a land ceiling case against Sri Mahanand Thakur, the father of respondent no. 3 some Adivasis had forcibly entered even before the lands could be distributed in accordance with the provisions of the ceiling law. Although the impugned order does not make any reference to this letter, Mr. Mishra submitted that this letter too was on the record of the case and this also lends support to the case of the landlord that the petitioners were not really Bataidars but had taken over the disputed lands forcibly.

5. Mr. Birendra Prasad Verma, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the letter relied upon on behalf of respondent no. 3 was written by the same officer (D.C.L.A.) who eventually passed the order coming under challenge in this writ petition. The impugned order; therefore contended Mr. Verma, was also bad on account of the personal bias of the 'Collector'.

6. However, without going into the question of bias the purely legal issue that I propose to examine in this case is whether it was within the jurisdiction of the Collector to take upon himself the adjudication of the dispute between the parties and to record a finding, determining the dispute on an appraisal of the evidence led before him by one of the parties to the dispute.

7. In my considered opinion, the answer must be in the negative.

8. From the scheme of Section 48E of the Act, tit is quite clear that a dispute r