Order N. Pandey, J. This writ application has been filed for quashing of an order dated 14.8.1982 (Annexure 3) whereby, the Deputy Collector, Land Refonns (Respondent no. 1) has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under section 48E of the Bihar Tenmcy Act, 1885 (hereinafter) referred to as the Act. 2. The petitioner filed an application be fore the Anchaladhikari, Dinara, stating of therein that he was the under raiyat of Kashi Sah (respondent no. 3) with respect to the land in dispute since last 24 years. It was alleged that the respondent along with their supporters, were trying to disposess him from the land in question. A prayer was made to restrain in the respondents from interfering with his possession. The Anchaladhikari through his letter dated 3.6.1982 send the application of the petitioner before the Deputy Collector, Land Refonn (DCLR) for proper action. Upon receipt of the application of the petitioner, the D.C.L.R. by his order dated 25.6.1982 issued notices to both the parties to show cause why a proceeding under section 48e of the Act be not initiated. 3. On 13.7.1982, the D.C.L.R. directed the Anchaladhikari and the Officer Incharge of Dinara to see that the petitioner is not dispossessed from the land. These after, respondent no.3 appeared and filed his show cause denying the claim of the petitioner that he was an under-raiyat with respect to the land in question. It was also pointed out that out of the three plots over which the petitioner has raised dispute, two plots, that is, plot nos. 630 and 535 appertaining to khata no. 159 belong to Radha Krishna Prasad and this respondent had no concern with such land. The respondent no.3 only claimed plot no. 1595 khata no. 159. In the petition which was filed for initiating a proceeding, respondent no. 3 Kashi Sah was shown as landlord of all the three plots. 4. The D.C.L.R., after examining the show cause of respondent no.3 and hearing the parties, was not satisfied about the existence of any of the conditions for initiation of a proceeding under section 48E of the Act. He also noticed that in the application the petitioner had shown respondent no. 3 as landlord of all the three plots where as according to respondent no. 3 he had right, title and Possession only over plot no. 1495 and other two plots belong to Radha Krishan Prasad. He also noticed that in the application the petitioner had shown respondent no. 3 as landlord of all the three plots where as according to respondent no. 3 he had right, title and Possession only over plot no. 1495 and other two plots belong to Radha Krishan Prasad. Taking all the facts into consideration, the application of the petitioner for initiating the proceeding was rejected by the impugned order. 5. Mr. B.P. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is completely illegal. In order to find out a prime facie case, and bona-fide dispute, between the parties, it was not open to the D.C.L.R. to hold an inquiry. An inquiry whether, the petitioner was under-raiyat of respondent no. 2 could only be made by the Board constituted under section 48E of the Act. The D.C.L.R. could not have assumed jurisdiction of a Board for such purposes. He contended that law does not permit two inquiries one by the D.C.L.R. and the other by a Board. In support of his contention, he placed reliance over in the case of Dhanji Singh v State of Bihar & others (AIR 1979 Patna 259) and Lakshmi Prasad Bhagat and anr. v. State of Bihar & others ( 1978 BBCJ 750 ). 6. Mr. Kamla Pati Singh, Senior counsel appearing for respondent no. 3. On the other hand, submitted that the D.C.L.R. while performing the function of a Collector under the Act, in a proceeding like this, on the basis of relevant materials on the record, has to be satisfied about the existence of requisite conditions for initiation a proceeding under Section 48E of the Act. According to him, at this stage, the D.C.L.R. is not required to act as Post Office. He has to find out either on the basis of an application filed by an under raiyat a prime facie case for initiating a proceedings (sick) In support of his contention of M/s Jute and Gunny Brothers (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & others Vs. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Madhubani and others (1981 PLJR 433 ). 7. In the case of Dhanji Singh V. State of Bihar & others (supra). It was held that the scheme of Section 48E of the Act does not conceive two inquiries one preliminary and the other final. State of Bihar & others Vs. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Madhubani and others (1981 PLJR 433 ). 7. In the case of Dhanji Singh V. State of Bihar & others (supra). It was held that the scheme of Section 48E of the Act does not conceive two inquiries one preliminary and the other final. If the applicant satisfied the Collector on the basis of materials produced before him or the Collector is satisfied on his own, then without waiting for the landlord, a proceeding can be initiated. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, Mr. Verma contended that it was not open to the D.C.L.R. to hold an inquiry in order to reject the claim of the petitioner. In my view, from the facts of the present case, it does not appear that the D.C.L.R. has conducted a regular inquiry as required under the Act. Admittedly, a proceeding under section 48E of the Act is a quasi judicial, Therefore, collector under the Act while initiating a proceeding under section 48E of the Act has to be satisfied about the existence of requisite conditions for initiation of a proceeding. In the case of Dhanji Singh, the Full Bench also took notice of such a situation. It was held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down to meet such eventualities. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In this connection the relevant finding of the full Bench may be noticed hereunder:- "9. x x x x The Collector under the said section, after having initiated the proceeding, can prevent the landlord from ejecting the under raiyat until the disposal of the proceeding, which order shall be in the nature of injunction" Then can it be said that he is performing only administrative functions. In my opinion, no sooner the Collector considers the question of initiation of a proceeding under sub section (1) on the basis of an information received by him or on the basis of an application made on behalf of the under-raiyat, a quasi judicial proceeding is initiated and all orders passed thereafter are to be passed consistent with the norms prescribed. I have no "hesitation in holding that a proceeding under S. 48-E can be initiated only after the Collector is satisfied that one of the three requisite conditions exists. I have no "hesitation in holding that a proceeding under S. 48-E can be initiated only after the Collector is satisfied that one of the three requisite conditions exists. On what material and in what manner the Collector shall be satisfied about existence of one or the other requisite condition for initiation of the proceeding no hard and fast rule can be laid down. It will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case." 8. In the case of Beuni Yadav others v. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Madhubani and others (supra) a learned single Judge of this Court placing reliance over the decision of Bhanji Singh v. State of Bihar & others (Supra), held that the opinion of the Collector under the Act, while rejecting or initiating a proceeding under section 48B of the act can be challenged on the ground of non application of mind or perversity or on the ground that it was formed on collateral grounds, or it was beyond the scope of the Act. It would be useful to quote the relevant passage from the aforesaid: - "6. From the above observations in my view, follow two conclusion, namely, (1) the order initiating the proceeding must show on the face of it that there has been an application of mind of the Collector, and (ii) it is open to a conctestant to challenge the order if he could show that it was a case of non-application of mind or the order initiating the proceeding was perverse. By the first condition I mean to say that the satisfaction of the Collector must not be only subjective but it must be objective otherwise there cannot be any possibility of challenging it on the grounds mentioned in the second item. Obviously this situation will arise only when the other side appears the Collector because the initial order may be passed ex part xxxx" 9. From a bare reference to the relevant provisions of the Act as also the judgment of the Full Bench as noticed a above, it is evident that the Collector is not bound to initiate a proceeding no sooner an application is filed on behalf of an under raiyat. He has to apply his judicial mind and inappropriate cases he may reject such a prayer. The reference of the dispute under the Act before the Board is not automatic and without application of mind. He has to apply his judicial mind and inappropriate cases he may reject such a prayer. The reference of the dispute under the Act before the Board is not automatic and without application of mind. It is well known where a particular Act vests power in an authority to initiate or not to initiate a proceeding on its own, it cannot be said that such opinion can be recorded with out application of mind the facts of the case. 10. As I have already noticed, Mr. Verma has unnecessarily made a grievance saying that the D.C.L.R. conducted an inquiry as prescribed under the Act. From perusal of the order it would appear that the petitioner could not satisfied him that there was a bona - fide dispute under the Act. It further reveals that the petitioner wrongly mentioned in his application that only three plots belong to respondent no. 3 in my view, the D.C.L R. rightly rejected his claim. If he was not in a position to disclose the name of his landlord with respect to two the plots, a doubt can safely be raised about the genuineness of the entire claim. Besides the aforesaid, the D.C.L.R has also noticed the statement of respondent no. 3 in his show cause that he had only 9.48 acres of unirrigated land. 11. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Application dismissed