Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. This writ application is directed against the recommendation of the Board dated the 28th December, 1981, as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application; the order dated the 15th May, 1982, passed by the respondent No. 3 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application; and the purcha dated the 27th May, 1982, issued in terms of Sec. 48-E of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the said Act) as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application. 2. The facts of this case lie in a very narrow compass. 3. The respondent No. 5 filed an application purported to be under Sec. 48-E of the said Act as against the petitioner. The petitioner has contended that, although the dispute was referred to the Board, prior to that, he had not been given any notice in terms of the rules framed by the State of Bihar under Section 48-E of the said Act. In terms of Rule 2 of the said Rules, when a proceeding is initiated under Sub-section (1) of Sec. 48-E, the Collector will nominate a person as the Chairman of the Board and simultaneously ask both the landlord and the under raiyat to indicate within three days of his order whether they have any objection in the nomination on the ground that the Chairman nominated has any connection with the dispute or with any of the party directly affected by the dispute. In terms of Sub-rule (b) of the aforementioned Rule 2, the party raising an objection will be heard by the Collector and if the objection is found to be valid another person will be nominated as the Chairman. In terms of Sub-rule (c) of the aforementioned Rule 2, on the expiry of the period of three days from the date of the order under Clause (a), if no objection has been raised by then or an objection has been disallowed after hearing the party under Clause (b), the Collector will appoint the person nominated as the Chairman of the Board. 4. The aforementioned Rule 2 of the said Rules is mandatory in nature, inasmuch as, the Chairman of the Board can be appointed after the parties thereto either failed to raise any objection within the prescribed period upon having received the prescribed notice or if any application of that effect has been rejected. 5. 4. The aforementioned Rule 2 of the said Rules is mandatory in nature, inasmuch as, the Chairman of the Board can be appointed after the parties thereto either failed to raise any objection within the prescribed period upon having received the prescribed notice or if any application of that effect has been rejected. 5. In view of the fact that no counter-affidavit has been foiled on behalf of the State, the statement made in para 14 of the writ application wherein it has been contended that the petitioner had not received any notice regarding the constitution of the Board has got to be accepted. Further, from the recommendation as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application or from the impugned order as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application it does no appear that the Board even made any attempt to make any amicable settlement between the parties as required under Sec. 48E(7) of the said Act. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 6. In the result, this application is allowed and the order as contained in Annexure-3 and the purcha as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application are set aside. However, the respondent No. 3 is hereby directed to proceed with the case afresh. But, in the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.