By Court By the present application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged a proceeding which has been drawn up under section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') and is pending. The Impugned order has been given in Annexure 4' to the writ application. Although the order is a long one, the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms has not given his prima facie finding on any of the questions. 2. On behalf of the petitioners it has been contended that before a proceeding under section 48E of the Act, can be started there must be a finding of a prima facie case in favour of the applicant-bataidars. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Ram Narain Singh Vs. State of Bihar and M/s Jute & Gunny Brokers (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar. It has further been contended that the petitioners being several in number, the area of land belonging to each of them is within 5 acres and no proceeding is maintainable in law against them. Lastly, it has been said that the order constituting the board is not consistent with the rule framed under the Act, and is, therefore, illegal 3. No body has appeared either on behalf of the bataidar respondents or the State and its Officials. On behalf of the counsel appearing for the State of Bihar it has been stated that the State does not feel interested in such cases and it was for the private party to have objected to the prayer in the application. In the circumstances we have ourselves considered the contentions raised unaided. 4. In the case of Ram Narain Singh a Division Bench of this Court held that even a dispute over possession on the ground of nonexistence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the two parties should be sufficient for initiating a proceeding. The decision, however, further observed that such a dispute must be a bona fide dispute. One of the conditions for starting a proceeding under the section is existence of a dispute between the under raiyat and the landlord, and this dispute has to be a bona fide one. Mr. The decision, however, further observed that such a dispute must be a bona fide dispute. One of the conditions for starting a proceeding under the section is existence of a dispute between the under raiyat and the landlord, and this dispute has to be a bona fide one. Mr. Verma appearing for the petitioners has attempted to place before us a large number of documents on the basis of which he urged that the claim of the respondents Bataidars must be held to be malafide. He invited us to examine the merits of the case which we have declined as we think that it is for the Officer concerned to be satisfied with the bonafide nature of the application before drawing up of any proceeding. The criticism of Mr. Verma is correct that the Court has not attempted to appreciate the circumstances, materials or evidence relevant and produced by the petitioners. We therefore, set aside the impugned order as contained in Annexure 4' and remand the matter to the respondent No.6 for re consideration of the materials and draw up a fresh proceeding, if he is of the view that the claim of the Bataidars is a bona fide one. The respondents may also consider the question as to whether the section has application to the petitioners who are several in number and who claim to possess small areas of land. In view of this order, it is not necessary to decide the other question raised by the petitioners about the violation of the rule in constituting the Board. 5. In the result writ application is allowed in terms mentioned above, but with out costs. Application allowed.