JUDGMENT : K.B.N. Singh, C.J. & B.S. Sinha, J. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing of an ORDER :dated the 22nd September, 1975, marked as Annexure 9 to this writ application, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Dinapur (Respondent No. 1), postponing passing of final ORDER :s in Batai Case No. 250 of 1974-77 in which a compromise petition has been filed by the parties, on the ground that certain ceiling cases involving the same lands are pending. 2. The aforesaid prayer has been made on the following averments made in the writ application : In 1349 Fasli, the petitioners' ancestor Kishun Singh took Batai settlement of 5.7 acres of land, the details of which are to be found at pages 3 to 5 of the writ application, from Sudama Prasad Singh, ancestor of respondent no. 2 to 11, at a Nazrana of Rs. 600/-. Subsequently, in 1354 Fasli a Hukumnama (Annexure 1) by way of Yaddast in support of the aforesaid settlement was issued in favour of the ancestor of the petitioners Since the date of the Batai settlement the petitioners ancestor and thereafter the petitioners continued cultivating the aforesaid lands as Bataidan under the ancestor of the said respondents and thereafter under the respondents till 1974, in which year respondents no. 2 to 11 tried to create trouble anti disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the said Batai lands. Subsequently, on the 23rd September, 1974, the petitioners filed a petition (Annexure 2) under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act before respondent no. 1 for declaration of their rights as Bataidars in respect of the aforesaid lands. That petition was registered as Batai Case No. 250 of 1974 and a show cause notice was issued against respondents no. 2 to 11 by respondent no. 1 on the same date. On the 23rd December, 1974 respondents no. 2 to 11 filed a show cause (Annexure 3) alleging that the petitioners gave up Batai cultivation long ago and praying for rejection of their petition. On the 2nd January, 1975 respondent no. 1 ORDER :ed for issue or notice for constitution of a Board under Section 48E (3) of the Bihar Tenancy Act. 2 to 11 filed a show cause (Annexure 3) alleging that the petitioners gave up Batai cultivation long ago and praying for rejection of their petition. On the 2nd January, 1975 respondent no. 1 ORDER :ed for issue or notice for constitution of a Board under Section 48E (3) of the Bihar Tenancy Act. In response to this notice, the petitioner nominated one Shri Tipan Singh as their Panch and respondents 2 to 11 nominated one Shri Ram Balak Verma as their panch vide Annexures 4 and 5. Respondent No. 1 by his ORDER :dated the 6th May, 1975, nominated one Shri Ram Jatan Singh as the Chairman of the Board. The Board made an attempt to being about amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties as a result of which the petitioners and respondents no. 2 to 11 filed a compromise petition (Annexure 6) before the Chairman of the Board, in which the claims of the petitioners were accepted by respondents no. 2 to 11. The Board by its ORDER :dated the 15th September, 1975 (Annexure 7) accepted this compromise. This was followed by a report to this effect (Annexure 8) submitted by the Board to respondent no. 1, requesting the latter to pass final ORDER :on it. On receipt of this report, respondent no. 1 on the 22nd September, 1975 passed the impugned ORDER :to the effect that as Land Ceiling Cases No. 1 to 8 of 1973-74 concerning the same lands were pending, final ORDER :s in this case (Batai Case No. 250 of 1974-75) would be passed after the disposal of the aforesaid land ceiling cases. 3. The petitioners have also filed three supplementary affidavits stating therein that the petitioner have less than four acres of land and respondents no. 2 to 11 have 227 acres of land; that respondent no. 2 had also filed a petition before respondent no. 1 in Land Ceiling Case No. 8 of 1973 stating that on most of his land there are Bataidars; and that on the basis of that petition, by a notification published in the Patna District Gazette (Extraordinary), dated the 21st June, 1976, the surplus land of respondent no. 2 was notified, from which it is apparent that the lands claimed by the petitioners in Batai Case No. 250 of 1974-75 have been declared as surplus lands. 2 was notified, from which it is apparent that the lands claimed by the petitioners in Batai Case No. 250 of 1974-75 have been declared as surplus lands. It is further stated in one of the supplementary affidavits, that, on the basis of the above facts and on the basis of the fact that Land Ceiling Cases No. 1 to 8 of 1973-74 have been disposed of, the petitioners filed an application (Annexure 10) before respondent no. 1, for passing final ORDER :s in the Batai Case, and on this petition respondent no. 1 ORDER :ed that as a writ case is pending in the High Court, no ORDER :can be passed in the matter-vide copy of the ORDER :as Annexure 11. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 stating that under Section 22(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' the claim of an under-raiyat who is to be recognised as an occupancy raiyat, can only be decided when the land vests in the State; but in the instant case, the land in question has only been notified under Section 15 (1) of the Act and has not vested in the State, and therefore, final ORDER :has not been passed regarding the claim of the petitioners as under-raiyats. 5. Mr. Kailash Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the action of Respondent No. 1 in not passing ORDER :s is wholly illegal, Inasmuch as under Sub-section (8) of Section 48 E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, he is bound to pass ORDER :s after the proceeding is submitted to him by the Board appointed under the said Section. Sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 48 E lay down the procedure which has to be followed by the Board, after a reference of a Batai Case. Under Sub-section (6), after the parties appeal, the Board is bound to make an effort to bring about an amicable settlement of the dispute, and, in case such an amicable settlement is arrived at, the Board is bound to submit a report, containing the terms on which the settlement is brought to the Collector, who (the Collector) may dispose of the proceeding in accordance with the terms of the report. Sub-section (7) provides that where no settlement is brought about, an inquiry will be made and the Board will submit its final report on the dispute, recording its findings, to the Collector, who may dispose of the proceeding in accordance with the terms of the findings. In case of a disagreement with the report or the findings of the Board, the Collector has to fellow the procedure laid down in Subsection (8), which reads as follows :- “(8) In case of disagreement with the report or findings of the Board, the Collector shall, after recording his reasons for such disagreement and after giving the parties concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard, make such enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary and on being satisfied that- "(1) the person threatened with ejectment is an under-Raiyat, the Collector shall declare the threatened ejectment illegal and direct that the landlord shall not interfere with the possession of the under-Raiyat in his tenancy or any portion thereof, (ii) the land under dispute is in the tenancy of the under-Raiyat, the Collector shall declare possession of the under-Raiyat, and ORDER :the crop or produce, or the sale proceeds thereof, as the case may be, to be divided between the under-Raiyat and his landlord in accordance with provisions of Sections 69 to 71 of the Act; (iii) the person alleged to have been ejected was an under-Raiyat of the disputed land on the date of ejectment and was ejected within twelve years before the commencement of proceeding under this Section in contravention of Section 89, the Collector shall ORDER :that the landlord, or, where any other person, is in possession of the land comprised in the under-Raiyat's tenancy or portion thereof under any claim derived from the landlord, such person shall restore the under-Raiyat to possession of the tenancy or portion from which he was so ejected." Sub-section (9) lays down that the ORDER :s of the Collector under Subsection (6), (7) or (8) shall be in writing and shall state reasons on which it is made and the period, which shall not exceed six months from the date of the ORDER :, within which his ORDER :shall be carried out. Sub-section (11) provides that the person disobeying the ORDER :of the Collector shall be on a complaint filed by the Collector, punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees; or with both. Sub-section (13) lays down that no Civil or Criminal Court shall have any jurisdiction over the subject matter of dispute after a proceeding is initiated under Sub-section (1) by the Collector, save as expressly provided in this Act. 6. In view of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, before whom the proceeding is pending, has to dispose of the proceeding under the B.T. Act. He cannot keep the proceeding pending indefinitely. He has to dispose of the proceeding in accordance with the provisions of the Act one way or the other. We are not a moment suggesting as to what ORDER :s he should pass, nor it is a matter for our consideration, as, in the first instance, it is for Respondent No. 1 to pass appropriate ORDER :s. It seems that the pendency of this application has also been standing in the way of the Collector in disposing of the proceeding pending before him, as would appear from his ORDER :dated the 19th July, 1976 (Annexure 11'). We accordingly allow this application and direct Respondent No. 1 to dispose of the Batai Case No. 250 of 1974-75, as expeditiously as possible. In the circumstances of the case, we make no ORDER :as to costs. Application allowed.