By Court. Respondent no. 5 to this writ application filed an application under section 69 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, for division of the crops standing on certain plots mentioned in paragraph 1 of the application which were raised in the year 1971-72. The name of respondent no. 6 Bhagwan Sah was mentioned as the opposite party in the application under whom the respondent no.5 claimed to be a bataidar. An order in favour of respondent no. 5 was passed by the Block Development Officer, respondent no. 4. The case of the petitioner is that earlier in 1968 he had obtained a registered sale deed from Bhagwan Sha and was in possession of the land and the claim of batai was wrongly made. The petitioner states that as he was not made a party to the proceeding and had no knowledge thereof, he could not oppose the application before the Block Development Officer. When he learnt about the order, he moved the Collector, the respondent no.3 unsuccessfully. He thereafter filed a revision application before the Commissioner, the respondent no.2, who allowed the revision application, holding that a bona fide and genuine dispute had been raised by the petitioner regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant and the application under section 69 in that circumstance could not be allowed. The respondent no. 5, the bataidar thereafter filed a revision application before the Member, Board of Revenue, which has been allowed by the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue referred to the observation made by the Collector that the transaction of sale by Bhagwan Sah in favour of the petitioner was farzi and held that in that view it was surprising as to how the Commissioner allowed the revision petition of the petitioner. The question of batai, however, was not decided by the Additional Member on merits, but the bataidar's application was allowed on the ground that a proceeding under section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, was pending decision. In the operative portion the Board directed that the division of the crop would take place as originally ordered by the Block Development Officer. 2. There is a serious dispute in the present case about the right of batai claimed by the respondent no. 5. In the operative portion the Board directed that the division of the crop would take place as originally ordered by the Block Development Officer. 2. There is a serious dispute in the present case about the right of batai claimed by the respondent no. 5. The petitioner appears to have raised a bona fide claim of title to the land on the strength of a registered document and having regard to the scope of section 69 it appears that the revenue courts did not have jurisdiction in that situation. The petitioner was also raising serious question against the claim of batai. The jurisdiction of the revenue courts under section 69 arises only on the assumption of relationship of landlord and tenant being existent between the parties and the rent being payable on bhaoli basis. If a bona fide dispute is raised in regard to these matters, the revenue court ceases to have jurisdiction. The decisions in Nakheeda Singh Vs. Gopi Narayan and in Mir Tapura Hossain Vs. Gopi Narayan which have been followed in numerous decisions support our view. We may, however, add that in view of section 48 E (c) (ii) if the claim of the bataidar is upheld in a proceeding under section 48 E steps may be taken for division of the crop in question under section 69 to 71. There appears to be good reasons to make such a provision in the a mended section 48 E, in as much as after a decision on merits, it cannot be held that objection of a landlord to a prayer for division is bona fide. In the present case it has been stated that a proceeding under section 48E had been started but was dropped. In the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, it is mentioned that such a proceeding is pending. The respondent no.5 has not appeared in this Court and we, therefore, do not intend to decide this point, namely, whether a proceeding under section 48E is pending or has terminated or if it has terminated then what is the result thereof. Nonetheless So far as the order as contained in Annexure 4 is concerned, it is clearly illegal and must be, therefore set aside. We, accordingly, allow this writ application and quash the orders as contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 4 to the writ application. Nonetheless So far as the order as contained in Annexure 4 is concerned, it is clearly illegal and must be, therefore set aside. We, accordingly, allow this writ application and quash the orders as contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 4 to the writ application. It is, however, clarified that in case a proceeding under section 48 E is pending or is started hereafter, it will be open to the authorities concerned to pass an order for division of the crops on the land by resorting to under section 69 to 71 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, at a stage where section 48E (8) (ii) applies. Application allowed.