Judgment Ashwini Kumar Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner claims to be Bataidar in respect of the land in dispute as mentioned in Annexure 3 of the writ case. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the learned Collector (respondent No. 2) dated the 20th of July 1982 (Annexure 2) affirming the order dated the 24th September 1977 (Annexure 1) passed by the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms (respondent No. 3). The impugned order has been passed under Sec. 48-E(8) of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter to be called as "the Act"). 2. The petitioner filed an application under Sec. 48-E of the Act before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms. Samastipur (respondent-No. 3) claiming to be Bataidar in respect of the land in dispute which belongs to one Most. Ram Kumari Devi. The ground taken by the petitioner was that the said Most Ram Kumari Devi was disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question. On receipt of this application the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Samastipur constituted a Board and referred the matter to the Board. Initially the Deputy Collector Land Reforms nominated the Anchal Adhikari, Morwa as the Chairman of the Board, but subsequently on refusal by the said Anchal Adhikari, Morwa, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (Respondent No. 3) as the Chairman of the Board and sent the matter to him After receiving the record, the Anchal Adhikari, Bilhutipur who was nominated as Chairman of the Board issued notices to the parties concerned. 3. From the ordersheet maintained by the Board it appears that the punches did not participate in the proceeding and on several dates the case was adjourned. On 5.11.76 the parties were directed to come to an amicable settlement of the dispute and on the next date fixed in the proceeding the Anchal Adhikari passed an order to the effect that the petitioners claim to be a Bataidar in respect of the land in dispute was not correct and that the petitioners had taken possession of the land only with a view to frustrates ceiling proceeding against the said Most. Ram Kumari Devi. With this finding the record was transmitted to the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms to take necessary steps in the matter. Ram Kumari Devi. With this finding the record was transmitted to the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms to take necessary steps in the matter. Thereafter he filed a petition before the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms contending that the Anchal Adhikari had not visited the spot nor he had taken evidence of any independent witness. The petitioner filed documentary evidence in support of his claim of his being Bataidar of the land in question. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms (Respondent No. 3) by his order dated 24.9.79 rejected the application and affirmed the order of the Board without going into the merits of the case and without giving his own reasons as required by Sub-section (9) of Sec. 48-E of the Act. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, Samastipur and by his order dated the 20th July, 1982 dismissed the appeal. The learned Collector took the view that the Sada Hukumnaraa was not admissible in evidence and in the ceiling case started against the land-holder the lands have been declared surplus and the provisions of the Act could not frustrate the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act. Thus, the present writ case by the petitioner before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted first that the constitution of the Board and nomination of the Chairman was not in accordance with the provision of Rule 2 of the Rules framed under the Act-secondly, that the finding of the Board was vitiated on account of failure on the part of the Board to make an endeavour for amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties before entering into the enquiry; thirdly, that the Punches having not taken part in the Boards meeting entire proceeding is vitiated in law and that the report of the Chairman was not sustainable and lastly that the Sada Hukumnama, if not admissible in evidence, could, in law, be used for collateral purposes. 5. It is well settled that matter is referred to a Board which is in the nature of arbitration Board, the first thing that the Board is required to do, is to notice the parties and to make endeavour to bring about amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties. 5. It is well settled that matter is referred to a Board which is in the nature of arbitration Board, the first thing that the Board is required to do, is to notice the parties and to make endeavour to bring about amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties. If the Board succeeds in bringing about amicable settlement, the Board is required forthwith to submit a report containing the terms of settlement and the Collector thereafter is to dispose of the proceeding in accordance with the terms of the report. It is only where the Board does not succeed in bringing about an amicable settlement of the dispute, the Board under Sub-section (7) of Sec. 48-E of the Act is to make an enquiry regarding the claim of Bataidar. On perusal of Sub-section (7) of Sec. 48-E it is manifest that the provisions with regard to endeavour by the Board for amicable settlement is a must and without making such efforts the Board cannot assume jurisdiction to enquire into the matter, referred to the Board. 6. From the ordersheet of the Board which is Annexure 5 to the instant case it is apparent that the Board did not make any endeavour for amicable settlement before entering into the enquiry. The only relevant order that is passed by the Board in this connection is dated the 5th November, 1976. It seems that the parties were directed to come to an amicable settlement. This direction to the parties to come to an amicable settlement is not enough in law. The endeavour for amicable settlement must be on the part of the Board. It is precondition before the Board can assume jurisdiction, and I am satisfied, on perusal of the ordersheet (Annexure 5-Y to the writ case), that the Board did not make any endeavour for amicable settlement before entering into the enquiry. This effort on the part of the Board is at the initial stage. It is thus manifest that the finding of the Board was arrived at without complying with the provisions of Sub-section (6) of Sec. 48-E of the Act, and as such is illegal. In that view of the matter the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (respondent No. 3) affirming such finding of the Board is also vitiated in law on account of the aforesaid illegality. In that view of the matter the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (respondent No. 3) affirming such finding of the Board is also vitiated in law on account of the aforesaid illegality. It was the duty of respondent No. 3 to see that the Board had complied with the mandatory provision of Sub-section (6) of Sec. 48-E of the Act before proceeding to the enquiry into the matter. The order of respondent No. 3 affirming the finding of the Board is also, therefore, illegal on that score. For the same reason the order of the learned Collector (respondent No. 2) is also illegal. Thus, the impugned orders, i.e., order dated the 24th of September, 1977 (Annexure-1) passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (respondent No. 3) and the order dated the 20th of July, 1982 (Annexure-2) passed by the learned Collector (respondent No. 2) are fit to be set aside on this ground alone. 7. The other points raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner need not be gone into in the light of the view that I have taken above. The matter is sent back to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Samastipur (respondent No. 3) for disposal in accordance with law. It is not known whether the same Anchal Andhikari who was the Chairman of the Board is still there or somebody else is there in his place and whether the Panches of the parties are available there or not. I, therefore, direct that respondent No. 3 should nominate a fresh Chairman with notice to the parties as required under Rule 2 of the Rules framed under the Act with option to nominate their Panches. The Board after constitution will make endeavours to bring about amicable settlement between the parties in accordance with the provision of Sub-section (6) of Sec. 48-E of the Act and no failure to bring about amicable settlement, will proceed in accordance with the provision of Sub-section (7) of Sec. 48-E of the Act and dispose of the proceeding in accordance with law. 8. Mr. J.P. Shukla, learned Government Pleader No. 2 has appeared on behalf of the State of Bihar. He informed this Court that inspite of his best efforts the State has not filed any counter affidavit, and as such the facts stated by the petitioner cannot be controverted. 9. 8. Mr. J.P. Shukla, learned Government Pleader No. 2 has appeared on behalf of the State of Bihar. He informed this Court that inspite of his best efforts the State has not filed any counter affidavit, and as such the facts stated by the petitioner cannot be controverted. 9. In the result, the application is allowed with the observations and directions made above, and the impungned order dated the 24th September, 1977 (Annexure-1) passed by the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms (respondent No. 3) and also the order dated the 20th of July, 1982 (Annexure 2) passed by the learned Collector (respondent No. 2) are hereby set aside. Respondent No. 3 is directed now to proceed in the matter in accordance with law keeping in view the observations and directions made above. In the circumstance of the case, there will be no order as to costs. As the matter is old, the respondent No. 3 and the Board should dispose it of expeditiously.