JUDGMENT S. K. Jha, J. All these applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India involve common sets of fact and identical questions of law. The petitioner in all these applications are the same. The contesting respondent is respondent No. 3, respectively, in all the applications. The relief prayed for in each of the writ petitions is for issuance of an appropriate writ quashing the initiation of a proceeding under section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by virtue of the order sheet (Annexure 2) to each of the writ petitions, and the notice issued to the petitioners in each of the cases has been appended as Annexure 3, respectively. 2. The short facts relevant for the disposal of these applications may be stated in a very narrow compass. Messrs Jute and Gunny Brokers Private Ltd. (petitioner no. 1) is a joint family firm of petitioners 2 to 5 who are said to be members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshra school of Hindu Law, of which petitioner no. 2, Sri Suraj MalMohta claims to be the karta. The entire land held and possessed by the petitioners has been described and set out fully in Schedule 1 of each of the writ petitions, according to which, as the petitioners allege, they hold and possess a total area of 38.84 1/4 acres of land in village Khalilpura and 2.93 acres of land in village Phulwarisharif. Thus, they claim to hold and possess a total area of 41.77 3/4 acres of land, including homestead, horticultural and agricultural lands. At the instance of respondent no. 3 in each of these applications, through Annexure 1 to each of them, respectively, the present proceedings under section 48E of the Act, have been started against the petitioners. In each of these Bataidari cases initiated by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Danapur, Patna (respondent no. 2) the petitioners filed petitions objecting to the continuance of the proceedings on a number of grounds. The grounds inter alia, were that the joint family of five persons holding a total area of 41 acres and odd lands which were neither irrigated by canal nor by lift irrigation work fell far beneath the area protected under section 48C, provisos (a) and (b) read with Explanation IV to that section of the Act. The grounds inter alia, were that the joint family of five persons holding a total area of 41 acres and odd lands which were neither irrigated by canal nor by lift irrigation work fell far beneath the area protected under section 48C, provisos (a) and (b) read with Explanation IV to that section of the Act. Another ground of attack was that the claim put forward by the various claimants claiming under-raiyati or Bataidari rights in the lands in question was absolutely false and frivolous and had been inspired by some extremists. 3. In the writ applications a point with regard to the constitutional validity of section 48E of the Act, and the rules framed there under was also raised. Mr. Kailash Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners, mildly tried to reagitate the same question over again, but in view of a series of Bench decisions of this court the initial one being that of Ram Narain Singh V. The State of Bihar AIR 1973 Pat 275 followed by various other Bench decisions, the point is no longer available to be re-agitated. I would accordingly hold, in view of the Bench decisions, that neither section 48E, excepting subsection (11) there of, which sub-section has already been declared ultra vires, nor the rules framed there under in any way suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality. 4. Learned counsel then submitted that in any event in the case of Ram Narain Singh (supra) the Bench deciding that case has clearly held that if a false and frivolous and mala-fide case is prima facie proved, then the proceeding shall have to be dropped. From the different petitions as well as the assertions made in these petitions learned counsel wanted to establish that with regard to the same block or plot of land quite a number of the so-called Bataidars had cropped up. This obviously showed that the claim put forward by the contesting respondent no. 3, respectively, of each case could not be said to be bona fide. Although this point has not been specifically taken in Annexure 4 to each of the writ petitions, the general objection with regard to the malafide nature of the claims put forward has certainly been mentioned there. 3, respectively, of each case could not be said to be bona fide. Although this point has not been specifically taken in Annexure 4 to each of the writ petitions, the general objection with regard to the malafide nature of the claims put forward has certainly been mentioned there. But in view of the paucity of materials before us, I am not in a position to say conclusively; one way or the other, as to whether the fact as alleged by the petitioners in the writ petitions, regarding the same block of land being held by several under-raiyats is correct or not. But this certainly deserves careful consideration by the land Reforms Deputy Collector before further proceedings are allowed to go on. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that the Land Reforms Deputy Collector should also have applied his mind to the fact whether the petitioners claim for exemption under section 48C was sustainable or not. I think, there is sufficient force in this contention of learned counsel also. Section 48C read with Explanation IV there to and provisos (a) and (b) clearly show that even in an undivided joint Hindu family each co-sharer shall be deemed to be a separate unit as a landlord (raiyat), and by virtue of the provisos mentioned above, if a landlord (raiyat) does not hold or possess any area of land in excess of five acres of irrigated land or ten acres of irrigated land, then such a land-holder will be protected by section, 48C. So much is pure question of law. But the matter has yet to be decided as to whether factually the assertions of the petitioners that they held in all 41 acres and odd land only is correct or not and as to what would be the proper share of each within the meaning of Explanation IV to section 48C of the Act. But on the materials on record it is not possible to decide the matter conclusively. Therefore, this matter should also be reconsidered by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector before the proceedings are all owed to go on. 6. Learned counsel also raised an objection to the manner in which the Board had been constituted and the Chairman there of had been nominated by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector by virtue of the orders contained in Annexure 2 to each of the writ petitions. 6. Learned counsel also raised an objection to the manner in which the Board had been constituted and the Chairman there of had been nominated by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector by virtue of the orders contained in Annexure 2 to each of the writ petitions. By now it had been settled by a series of decisions of this Court that in constituting a Board for the settlement of disputes under section 48E of the Act, the appropriate authorities should be well-advised to do so and to nominate the Chairman in consonance with the formalities as prescribed by rule 2 (a) (b) and (c) of the Bataidari Rules, 1971. In the present cases, it appears that the constitution of the Board as well as the nomination of the Chairman there of by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, respondent no. 2, has not been in consonance with the provisions of rule 2 aforesaid. 7. For the foregoing reasons, I would allow these applications and quash the orders as contained in Annexure 2 to each of the writ petitions and the notice as issued to the petitioners by virtue of Annexure 3 to each of the writ petitions and remit these cases back to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Danapur, for considering the matter afresh and for coming to a conclusion, one way or the other, after hearing the parties, firstly, as to whether the petitioners come within the exception or protection provided by section 48C, provisos (a) and (b) read with Explanation IV thereto; secondly, whether on the facts as asserted by the petitioners it can be said that the proceedings are malafide or not and, lastly, if the findings of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector with regard to each of the two points be against the petitioners, then to constitute a Board in consonance with rule 2 aforesaid. With these observations and directions, these applications are allowed, but there will be no order as to costs. S. N. P. Singh, C. J. I agree. Application allowed.