Judgment G.C. Bharuka. J. The present writ application has been filed by the sole petitioner for quashing of the entire proceedings including order dated 21.8.1982 passed by the Respondent no. 2, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms. Bettiah, in Bataidari Cases initiated at the instance of Respondent nos. 3 to 11. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the lands involved in the present Bataidari proceedings measuring about 2 Bighes 9 Kathas 13 Dhurs originally belonged to one Sarjug Prasad Rai, which were sold to the father of the petitioner in 1960. The father of the petitioner mortgaged the said lands with some other lands through registered deed of mortgage to one Ram Bihari Govind Rao on 31.8.1960 and the latter was put in the cultivating possession of the same. In the year 1969 the entire lands were re-mortgaged to said Ram Bihari Govind Rao by subsequent registered deeds. In the year 1975, the father of the petitioner died leaving behind the petitioner and his sister Maya Devi. In the year 1977, a proceeding under section 12 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act was initiated by D.C.L.R. (Respondent no. 2) at the instance of the petitioner, which was decided in his favour. The mortgagee Ram Bihari Govind Rao assailed the said order in various proceedings under the Act as well as before the High Court but the order passed by respondent no. 2 was affirmed at all stages. Subsequently the petitioner was delivered the possession of the entire mortgaged land on 13.6.1981 at the instance of D.C.L.R. (Respondent No.2). The lands in dispute in the present Bataidari cases are part of the lands delivered to the petitioner in the aforesaid proceedings. 3. It seems that in the month of March, 1982 separate applications were filed by respondent nos. 3 to 11 seeking initiation of proceedings under section 48E (3) of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by asserting in their petitions that they have been cultivating the lands in question as under-raiyat for about last 40 years and the petitioner, who is the landlord has threatened to dispossess and evict them from those lands. On the basis of these applications, respondent no. 2 registered case nos. On the basis of these applications, respondent no. 2 registered case nos. 48/1-82-83, 50/3-82-83, 53/6-82-83, 51/4-82-83, 49/2-82-83, 62/5-82-83, 10/82-83 and 11/82-83, 14/82-83 and issued notice to the petitioner for appearing in the case in order to take further steps in accordance with law. On receiving the said notice, the petitioner appeared before respondent no. 2 and prayed for dropping of the proceeding on the assertion that the facts asserted by the purported under-raiyats namely, respondent nos. 3 to 11 are false and the condition precedent for initiating the proceedings under section 48B does not, in fact, exist. 4. In support of his stand, the petitioner claims to have produced documents before the Collector under the Act, but despite all these, the Collector was of the opinion that once a proceeding under section 48B (1) of the Act is initiated, he has no option, but to refer the case to the Board under section 48B (3). 5. In this case, notices were sent to respondent nos. 3 to 11, which had been duly served and they have not choosen to contest the claims and assertions of the petitioner. It has been stated on behalf of the State that the State as such has no interest in this lis. Under the circumstances, the foundational facts, all asserted in the writ application, have to be accepted as undisputed facts. 6. So far as the view taken by the Collector is concerned, in my opinion, it is not sound in law. I need not delve much on the legal issue involved in this case because it has already been considered by the Special Bench of this Court in the case of Dhanji Singh vs. The State of Bihar & others reported in 1979 PLJR 247 . 7. I need not delve much on the legal issue involved in this case because it has already been considered by the Special Bench of this Court in the case of Dhanji Singh vs. The State of Bihar & others reported in 1979 PLJR 247 . 7. Section 48B (1) of the Act contemplates that the Collector, may of his own motion or on application made in this regard by an under raiyat, initiate a proceeding under section 48B (1) of the Act (i) if an under-raiyat is threatened with unlawful ejectment from his tenancy or any portion thereof by his landlord or if there is a dispute between them over the possession of the land, crop or produce thereof either on the ground of non-existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between them or otherwise, (ii) if an under-raiyat is or has been ejected from his tenancy or any portion thereof within twelve years before the commencement of proceedings under this section in contravention of the provisions of section 89. 8. In the present case, a proceeding has been initiated on a claim by the purported under raiyats that they are in cultivating possession over the disputed land for about 40 years and the petitioner, as landlord, is threatening to dispossess/eject them. No doubt, if the assertions made in the application by respondent nos. 3 to 11 are accepted on their face value, it cannot be said that there is any illegality in initiation of the proceeding in question and ordinarily the parties have to follow the procedure provided under section 48E to settle their claims. But the question which falls for consideration is that even if the Collector finds himself fully satisfied on the issue that some under-raiyat has got the proceeding initiated under section 48E of the Act by stating false and incorrect facts, still, whether he is debarred from dropping the proceedings and the only course left open to him is to constitute the Board under sub-section 3 and compel the landlord to undergo the entire formalities of proceedings under scheme of section 48E. In my opinion, it will be unreasonable to take any such view. In my opinion, it will be unreasonable to take any such view. Where the claim of the under-raiyat is found to be malafide and the documentary evidence produced by the landlord is unassailable in the sense that no reasonable and honest person can take a contrary view on the issue then the Collector will be very much competent to drop the proceedings. This view of mine also finds support from the observations made in the above referred Special Bench Case as noticed in paragraph-11 at page 254. 9. Now coming to the present case, respondents have not chosen to appear before this Court in spite of service of notices on them. Therefore it should be taken that the facts as asserted by the petitioner are correct and as such, the conditions precedent for initiation of the proceedings under section 48E of the Act are completely lacking. 10. Accordingly, I quash the entire proceedings as prayed for. The writ application is allowed. There will be no order as to cost.