Judgment K. B. N. Singh, C. J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing an order, dated the 2nd July, 1973 declaring Vishwanath Sah (respondent no.1) as a privileged tenant in respect of petitioners land a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 6. There is also a prayer for quashing the order dated 28th May, 1974, of the Collector of the district dismissing the appeal as no appeal lies to the Collector of the district against the order passed by an officer acting as Collector under the Act. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition need be stated. On the 2nd of May, 1973, respondent no.1 filed an application before the Circle Officer, Mushari Anchal to the effect that since about seven years he has constructed a house on plot no.404 in village Majhouli under police station Dharmdas where he is living and that he has no other land. A prayer was, therefore, made that parcha under the Bihar Privileged Persons homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") in respect of that land be issued in his favour and rent fixed in respect thereof after that petition there is a report dated 12th May, 1973, of Halka Karm-chari in which it is stated that respondent no.1 is in possession of plot no.404 on which he has got his house and the landlord of the plot in question is the petitioner. A copy of the said report has been filed as Annexure 2 The circle Inspector as per his report dated 13th May, 1973, has mentioned as follows: "the report of the Karamchari is correct. The Parcha may kindly be issued under P. P. Act. " thereafter a notice was issued by the Circle Officer which was received bv the petitioner on the 30th June, 1973. On the next the 4th July 1973 the imnugned order as contained in Annexure 6 was passed. The Parcha may kindly be issued under P. P. Act. " thereafter a notice was issued by the Circle Officer which was received bv the petitioner on the 30th June, 1973. On the next the 4th July 1973 the imnugned order as contained in Annexure 6 was passed. According to the petitioner, he came late and wanted to file a petition, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 5, asserting that respondent no.1 was a tenant of the house built by the petitioner in respect of which he has executed a Kirayanama in favour of the petitioner, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 1 As directed when the petitioner appeared on 4th July, 1973, he was informed that the case had been disposed of and order for Parcha was already passed in favour of respondent no.1. A copy of this order has been filed as Annexure 7. 3. Mr. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has Urged that neither in the reports nor in the order by which Parcha had been directed to be granted in favour of respondent no.1 and rent fixed there in any finding that respondent no.1 was a privileged tenant within the meaning of the Act. There seems to be substance in this contention of learned counsel. Sec.2 (i) defines privileged person to mean a person - " (1) who is not a proprietor, tenure-holder, under tenure-holder or a mahajan, and (2) who, besides his homestead, holds no other land or holds any such land not exceeding one acre. " It is such a privileged person, as defined above, who could be privileged tenant as defined under section 2 (j) of the Act to mean as follows : "privileged tenant" means a privileged person who holds homestead under another person and is, or but for a special contract, would be, liable to pay rent for such homestead to such person. " it is no doubt true that in the application filed by respondent no.1 he has stated that he holds no other land than the land on which he claims to have built a house for the last seven years. " it is no doubt true that in the application filed by respondent no.1 he has stated that he holds no other land than the land on which he claims to have built a house for the last seven years. But neither in the report of the karamchari nor in the report of the Circle Inspector there is any mention that the facts stated in the petition of respondent no.1 are correct nor do they say that respondent no.1 holds no other land besides the land on which he has constructed the house or holds any such land not exceeding one acre. Apart from this infirmity, there is another infirmity that respondent no.1 in his application does not say that he is not a proprietor, tenure-holder, under tenure holder or a mahajan and the reports also do not throw any light on this topic. It is manifest that the twin conditions necessary for being a privileged tenant within the ambit of privileged person either under section 2 (i) (1) or 2 (i) (2) have not been satisfied in this case before the impugned order has been passed. The order as contained in Annexure 6 has to be quashed as the necessary finding before declaring a person to be a privileged person or directing issue of Parcha and fixation of rent has not been recorded by the collector under the Act. 4. It may be relevant to refer here to the Bihar Privileged Persons homestead Tenancy Rules, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" ). Rule 3 speaks of applications to be filed by tenants or landlords for orders under the Act. Rule 4 says that on receipt of any of the applications mentioned in rule 3, the Collector shall start proceedings under the relevant sections to which the applications relate and deal with them in the manner provided for land revenue cases. Rule 5, which is important may be usefully quoted here : "5 (1) The Collector shall either himself make local inquiry or have such enquiry made by any responsible officer not below the rank of a Circle Inspector or Welfare Inspector and satisfy himself as to the correctness or otherwise of the contents of such applications. Rule 5, which is important may be usefully quoted here : "5 (1) The Collector shall either himself make local inquiry or have such enquiry made by any responsible officer not below the rank of a Circle Inspector or Welfare Inspector and satisfy himself as to the correctness or otherwise of the contents of such applications. (2) The enquiring officer shall issue a notice in Form F to all the interested parties intimating the date on which the enquiry shall be made and directing parties to produce all the evidence in their possession in support of or against the application. (3) The enquiring officer shall make a record of the evidence produced before him and, if he is not the Collector, submit his report to the collector. (4) The Collector shall after hearing the parties on all points arising out of the application pass such order as to him seems to be just and proper. (5) The Collector shall prepare a record of homestead held by privileged tenant in Form C. The main record shall be maintained in the office of the Collector and a copy of the record bearing the signature and seal of the Collector shall be made over to the landlord and the privileged tenant. " From a reference to rule 5 it is manifest that the Collector under the Act shall either himself make local inquiry or have such inquiry made by any responsible officer not below the rank of a Circle Inspector or Welfare Inspector and satisfy himself as to the correctness or otherwise of the contents of the application. The enquiring officer shall issue notice to the interested parties in Form F and record evidence produced before him and submit his report to the Collector. The Collector after hearing the parties on all the points arising out of the application has to pass order which may appear to him to be just and proper. By a supplementary affidavit the petitioner has stated that the Karamchari who made the enquiry was an officer below the rank of Circle Inspector or welfare Inspector. There is no counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respon-dent either to the main petition or to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. It is, therefore, manifest that the conditions as to local enquiry as contained in rule 5 (1) have not been complied with at all. There is no counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respon-dent either to the main petition or to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. It is, therefore, manifest that the conditions as to local enquiry as contained in rule 5 (1) have not been complied with at all. It is true that the Circle Inspector states that the report of the Karamchari is correct. But it is not clear whether he made local inquiry or not. 5 The Act is aimed at securing a homestead for a privileged tenant and the order passed by the Collector under the Act has been made final. This is with a view to protect the privileged tenants from the harassment of fighting litigations in courts of appeal or revision. In view of the stringent provisions of the Act which make the order of the Collector final, it becomes obligatory on the part of the Collector to adhere to the provisions of the law and strictly comply with the rules as to the mode of notice, enquiry including local enquiry etc. and record proper findings in such matters. The provisions contained in the Rules as to the method of notice and enquiry are meant as safeguards against arbitrary exercise of the wide powers conferred on the collector under the Act. 6. In the result, the application is allowed and the order as contained in Annexure 6 is quashed. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. Writ Application allowed.