Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against an order dated 9-10-1991 passed by the Additional Collector, Bettiah, West Champaran (respondent No. 2) whereby and whereunder he affirmed the order dated 30tta April, 1988 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bettiah (respondent No. 3) as contained in Annesures-20 and 16 respectively. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a narrow comp Secs. 40 persons claiming themselves to be the bataidars of the petitioners filed applicants before the the respondent No. 3 purported to be under Sec. 48 EH) of the Bihar Tenancy Act. Upon the said applications the respondent No. 3 constituted f Conciliation Boards of which Anchal Adhikari Champatia was made the Chairman. He called upon the parties to nominate their respective punches in all the aforementioned 40 Bataidari cases, 3. Five of the applicants namely Chandrika Ram, Ram Nath Rao, Magni Ram, Raktu Ram and Triveni Ram nominated one Sri Dhrub Kumar Sah, who submitted his report to the effect that the said persons have been cultivating the lands in question for 19-20 years. 4. Thereafter the petitioners filed applications before the Chairman of the Beard to make spot verification before proceeding before further in the matter as it was contended that the alleged batai sub-plots are imaginary and do not exist at the spot nor the same appear in the revenue records. It stands admitted that various reports were submitted in various others proceedings wherein it bad been poined out that the petitioners have been cultivating the lands themselves and some of the applicants had been their labourers. In the said reports also several discrepancies in the claims of the alleged bataidars were pointed out. The said reports are contained in Annexure-4 to 7 of the writ applications. 5. The Conciliation Board submitted its reports dated 7-9-1977 relating to petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 and reports dated 8-1-1978 and 16-1-1978 relating to petitioner No. 2. The respondent No. 3 asked for certain clarifications from the Anchal Adhikari Champat is who pursuant thereto submitted his report by his letter No. 356 dated 8-6-1978 which is contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application. 6. Before the Conciliation Board 13 out of 40 batai cases were withdrawn by the respective claimants stating that they has no concern with tho lands in question. 7. 6. Before the Conciliation Board 13 out of 40 batai cases were withdrawn by the respective claimants stating that they has no concern with tho lands in question. 7. The respondent No. 3 however, was not satisfied with the report of the Board, although no objection by any party to the proceeding was filed thereto. He, therefore, directed that the fresh enquiry be made in relation to all the 40 cases, although, as, noticed hereinbefore, 13 cases had already been withdrawn. It appears that later on 9 other claimants had also withdrawn their application. 8. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the said order before the Additional Collector who set aside the same and directed the Land Reforms Deputy Collector to proceed in the matter according to law and make an enquiry himself. The respondent No. 3 however, despite the said appellate order referred the contesting matters to the Boards after constituting them afresh by an order dated 15-6-1980. The petitioners again preferred appeals against the said orders which were allowed by the respondent No. 2 by an order dated 30th June, 1981. 9. The respondent No. 3 thereafter held local inspection on 23-12-1982 and directed the Anchal Adhikari, Champatia to record the evidence of the witnesses of both parties and submit a report. The respondent No. 3, however, did not draw up any memorandum of inspection. 10. The respondent No. 3 by an order dated 30thJ April, 1988 as contained Annexure 16 to the writ application passed final orders in favour of 18 Bataidars inter alia on the ground that Anchal Adhikari had upheld the claim of the Bataidars. He, in his impugned order (Anexure-16) relied upon the certificate of Mukhiya Champatia Gram Panchayat Raj but did not take into consideration the other certificates upon which the petitioners relied upon. 11. The petitioners thereafter preferred an appeal against the said order before the Respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 made a local inspection. By an Order 9-10-1951 the respondent No. 2 dismissed the said appeal. 12. Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner infer alia submitted that as the respondent No. 3 in passing the impugned order as contained in Annexure-16 to the writ application bas taken into consideration many irrelevant facts and failed to take into consideration relevant facts, he must he held to have misdirected himself in law. 13. 12. Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner infer alia submitted that as the respondent No. 3 in passing the impugned order as contained in Annexure-16 to the writ application bas taken into consideration many irrelevant facts and failed to take into consideration relevant facts, he must he held to have misdirected himself in law. 13. The learned Counsel pointed out that the respondent No. 3 in his order has observed that the cases of Bataidars must be held to be correct without assigning any cogent reasons. He further held that as his predecessor-in-interest did not disallow the claim of the Bataiars even though he held local inspection, the claim of the Bataidars must be accepted. 14. It was further submitted that from the order dated 9-10-1991 passed by the respondent No. 2, it would further appear that he has not arrived at any independent finding but he endorsed the finding of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. 15. The learned Counsel appears to be correct. From a berusal of the impugned order as contained in AnneAure-16, it appears that the respondent No. 3 did not analyse the statements made by the witnesses. Even he did not name the said witnesses in his order. He further failed to take into consideration that the respondents had not disclosed the year in which they were inducted as Bataidars. 16. It further appears that the respondent No. 3 also did not take into consideration various reports which are contained in Annexures 3 to 7 and Annexure 12 to the writ application. 17. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their orders have also failed to take into consideration that the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat who submitted his report in favour of Bataidars was their nominated punches and thus his report could not be acted upon. 18. The respondent No. 3 further failed to take into consideration that the lands in question fall within the jurisdiction of two separate Gram Panchayats namely Ghuhari and Chargaha. The Mukhiya Chargaha Gram Panchayat submitted a report which is contained Annexure-17 to the writ application which was in favour of the petitioners, but the same has also not been taken into consideration by the respondent No. 3. 19. The Mukhiya Chargaha Gram Panchayat submitted a report which is contained Annexure-17 to the writ application which was in favour of the petitioners, but the same has also not been taken into consideration by the respondent No. 3. 19. It has further rightly been pointed out the areas of the land claimed by the respondents Bataidar did not tally with the entries made in the records of rights. 20. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the impugned order have also not taken into consideration the deposition of the witnesses who were examined on behalf of the petitioners. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 further have not come to a categorical finding as to when and how the Bataidars were allegedly dispossessed. 21. The respondent No. 3 in his impugned order has held that as the case bas been lingering for a long time and as his predecessor in office made a local enquiry but did not negative the claim of the Bataidars, is a pointer to the fact that the claimants had been cultivating the lands. The reasons assigned by the Respondent No. 2 are irrelevant. He further held that the case had been going on for a long time and the claimants were adament upon their claims they are Bataidars, the same should be accepted as correct. 22. These considerations are wholly irrelevant. The respondent No. 2 also did not arrive at this own independent finding but has merely held that the respondent No. 3 had found the opposite party as Bataidars. 23. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders as contained in Annexures-6 and 20 to the writ application cannot be sustained. 24. Further that the respondent No. 3 could not have held local inspection and examined witnesses without setting aside the report of the Conciliation Board. The Collector under the said Act could withdraw the proceeding from the Conciliation Board and decide the dispute itself only in the event the Board failed to record its finding and transmit the records within a period of six months as is required under Sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 48-E of the Act. 25. The Collector could make a further enquiry in terms of Sub-sec. (8) of the Sec. 48-E of the Act only in the event the conditions precedent therefor were satisfied. 26. (7) of Sec. 48-E of the Act. 25. The Collector could make a further enquiry in terms of Sub-sec. (8) of the Sec. 48-E of the Act only in the event the conditions precedent therefor were satisfied. 26. There is nothing on record to show as to how the respondent No. 3 exercised his power under Sub-sec. (8) of Sec. 48-E of the Act, 27. In this view of the matter, this application is allowed the impugned orders as contained in Annexures-16 and 20 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent No. 3 for afresh decision in accordance with law. 27. As the matter has been pending for a long time the respondent No. 3 must dispose of the proceeding within two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. 28. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.