Judgment Hari Lal Agrawal, J. 1. This writ application arises out of a proceeding started by the petitioner under Sec. 48-E of the Bihar Tenancy Act (to be referred as the Act) claiming bataidari right respect to certain lands sometime in the year 1974-75. After following the procedure prescribed under Sec. 48-E, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, respondent No. 8, forwarded the same to the Bataidari Board. The Bataidari Board after holding due and proper enquiry in the matter submitted its report to the Deputy Collector, who disposed of the proceeding in question in agreement with the findings of the Board. 2. Although no appeal lay against such an order, the petitioner under some misconception filed an appeal before the Collector of Bhagalpur, who rightly by his order dated 23-11-1976 dismissed the same summarily. 3. It appears that sometime before the Bataidari case was instituted, two proceedings under Sec.144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were drawn up relating to the lands involved in the Bataidari case. Both these proceedings were subsequently converted into proceedings under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and have been decided in favour of the under-raiyats. The landlords have accordingly filed two separate criminal revision applications in this Court and petitioner No. 4, Basudeo Yadav is the common petitioner in both these criminal revision applications as petitioner No. 4. But there are a large number of other persons arrayed on each side in both the revisions which have been ordered to be heard along with the writ application. 4. The order of the Deputy Collector is assailed by Mr. Guneshwar Prasad appearing for the petitioner on the ground that it is a mechanical and non-speaking order without stating the grounds on which the order was based. 5. In order to appreciate the argument, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of Sec. 48-E of the Act. They are Sub-sections (7), (8) and (9). According to Sub-section (7), after the Board records its findings on the dispute and trasmits the record of the proceeding to the Collector, the Collector "may dispose of the proceeding in accordance with the terms of the findings." This provision applies where the Collector finds himself in agreement with the findings of the Board. Sub-section (8) deals with the situation where the Collector disagrees with the report or the findings. Sub-section (8) deals with the situation where the Collector disagrees with the report or the findings. In that event he "after recording his reasons for such disagreement and after giving the parties concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard" has to make "such enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary" and then record his own findings. Then comes Sub-section (9) and this lays down that "the order of the Collector under Sub-sections (6), (7) or (8) shall be in writing, and shall state the grounds on which it is made...." 6. It is apparent that the order of the Deputy Collector in this case was covered by Sub-section (7) being in accordance with the terms of the findings of the Board. The question arises as to whether a Collector passing an order under Sub-section (7) of Sec. 48-E of the Act may merely record his agreement or he is required to pass a speaking order stating the grounds in support of his order. The argument of Mr. Guneshwar Prasad, as already noticed above, is that even in that event the Collector is bound to pass the order stating the grounds. Mr. S.C. Ghose appearing for the contesting respondent, on the other hand argued, that the Collector has to state the grounds only when he comes to pass an order under Sub-section (8) disagreeing with the report or the findings of the Board. He referred to the provisions contained in subsection (8) where it is mentioned that in case of disagreement, the Collector has to record his reasons for his disagreement, has to hear the parties, has to make enquiry, and naturally when the Collector disagrees then he has to give his own judgment which must be based on reasons and grounds. Learned Counsel accordingly argued that Sub-section (7) does not contain such provision and only lays down that the Collector may dispose of the proceeding in accordance with the terms of the findings. The argument on the use of different phraseology in Sections (7) and (8) is that where the Legislature intended the Collector to record reasons it has specifically provided in that regard in Sub-section (8). The argument on the use of different phraseology in Sections (7) and (8) is that where the Legislature intended the Collector to record reasons it has specifically provided in that regard in Sub-section (8). Elaborating his argument learned Counsel further contended that there could be no necessity for the Collector to reproduce the grounds or reasons of the Board and simply duplicate it in his order and it was sufficient for him if he merely endorsed his agreement with the findings of the Board. 7. The argument of Mr. Ghose appears to be attractive but it is fallacious. On reading the provision of Sub-section (9) of Sec. 48-E of the Act, it is not possible to accept his contention as in that event there was no necessity for the Legislature to incorporate Sub-section (7) and equate it with Sub-section (8) according to which admittedly the order of Collector has to state the grounds for passing the order. No direct decision was cited at the Bar but some support can be derived from the case of Mahanth Narain Gir V/s. The State of Bihar 1979 B.B.C.J. 32. That was no doubt a converse case, but there is sufficient observation in support of this view. It says: There cannot be any dispute that at this stage also the Collector has to hear the parties before disposing of the proceeding, even if he is inclined to agree with the finding of the Board, as it is the parties who can point out legal infirmity in the findings. This observation was based on an earlier decision of this Court in the case of Jai Ram Das Bhatla V/s. State of Bihar -- and lends support to the proposition. I would accordingly hold that the Collector has to pass a speaking order in the sense that the order must be self-contained and independent containing necessary reasons and grounds in support of the order so that one has not to refer to the records of the Bataidari Board in order to find out the reasons for the decision of the Collector. 8 Be that as it may, on the above discussions, I must hold that the order of the Dupty Collector suffers from the infirmity mentioned above as it does not incorporate the reasons for his order. 8 Be that as it may, on the above discussions, I must hold that the order of the Dupty Collector suffers from the infirmity mentioned above as it does not incorporate the reasons for his order. I would accordingly set aside the order and remit the case back to him for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. 9. With respect to the criminal revision application, learned Counsel for the parties agree that the right of the opposite parties declared under the said orders would be subject to the ultimate decision in this Bataidari proceeding. In other words, if in the proceeding, it is ultimately found that the right of the under raiyats is incorrect then the orders passed in their favour will stand rescinded and superseded by the decision of the Bataidari proceeding; otherwise they will prevail. In the circumstances, the writ application succeeds and the order (Annexure 2) is set aside. The orders challenged in the Criminal Revision applications would be subject to the ultimate decision in the proceedings as already indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.