Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. The petitioner prays to quash the order dated the 16th of May, 1985, as contained in Annexure 1, passed by the Deputy collector Land Reforms, Purnea (respondent No 2), dropping the proceedings in Case No.411 of 1982-83, which was initiated on an application filed by the petitioner claiming himself to be an under raiyat of respondent No.3 in regard to 13 decimals of land mentioned in paragraph 5 of the writ application. The facts :- 2. The petitioner asserts to this effect ;-Panchu Lal Singh had four sons, namely, Sheo Lai Singh, Ayodhi Singh (father of respondent Nos.4 and 5), Kali Singh (the Petitioner) and Ram Narayan Singh, Sheo Lal singh died leaving behind a son Ishwari Singh (respondent No.3 ). Plot no.643 stands recorded in the revisional survey operations in the names of sheo Lal Singh, Ayodhi Singh, Kali Singh and Ram Narayan Singh, along with other co-sharers, having a total area of 51 decimals situated in village satkodaria, P. S. Sadar in the District of Purnea. By a private arrangement, as indicated in the supplementary affidavit, the disputed land fell in the shares of Sheo Lal Singh (father of respondent No.3 ). After the death of his father, respondent No.3 left the village in question and started residing in another village giving the land in question in Batai to the petitioner in the year 1962 who thereafter started cultivating it as bataidar and began to divide the produce with respondent No.3 to issue a receipt acknowledging the fact of batai, as a result of which the latter (respondent no.3) became annoyed and thus the petitioner filed an application which gave rise to the case in question. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 later on got themselves added as parties on the ground that they purchased the land in question. A Board was also tried to be constituted but the matter was dropped. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 assert that the writ petitioner is none but own uncle of respondent No.3, that they had purchased the land in question on 24-8-1982 whereas the application in question was filed on 26-8-1982 without impleading them as parties but they got impleaded of their own in place of Respondent No.3 which was not objected and thereafter raised objection which was correctly upheld, and the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The submissions :- 3. Mr. The submissions :- 3. Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that Respondent No.2 ought to have proceeded to constitute a Board for the purpose of deciding the dispute, which not having been done the impugned order, is liable to be quashed. 4. Mrs. Verma, Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5, in reply, submits that on the case set forth by the petitioner he was not an under raiyat of Respondent Nos.4 and 5. Hence no interference is required. My findings :- 5. There is no averment, either in the writ application or in the supplementary affidavit by the petitioner, that there was any relationship, as envisaged under Sec.48 (E) of the Act. Respondents 4 and 5 were-not impleaded as parties by the petitioner. No notice was even given to respondent Nos 4 and 5. Thus they were justified in raising the objection after they were impleaded in place of Respondent No.3 by order dated 1-12-1982, which is not under challenge in this writ application. In that back drop the proceeding was correctly dropped and no interference is required by this Court in exercise of its discretion. 6. In view of the aforesaid legal position 1 am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed for him. 7. This writ application is, thus, devoid of merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. But in the peculiar facts and circumstances without cost. Application dismissed.