Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. I have also perused the petition filed on behalf of some of the claimants, which have been brought on record by the respondents by way of counter affidavit. 2. By this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 18.5.1994, passed by the Collailector under the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in a proceeding under section 48e of the Act, as contained in Annexure-1 rejecting the claim of the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel appearing on belaihalf of the petitioners submitted that the learned Collector under the Act has held a full fledged trial and without referring the matter to the Board constituted under the act has passed final order on merits. 4. It has further been stated that the collector under the Act after initiation of the proceeding should have referred the matter to the Board constituted under the Act and should not have decided the claims of the petitioners on merit. It has further been sublaimitted that the manner in which the Collector under the Act has decided the proceeding, after giving notice to the respondents, was not permissible in law. 5. In this case, I find that the petitioners filed their claims before the Collailector and the Collector to find out a prima facie case, issued notice to the land holders and after hearing the parties and examining the materials on record, has passed an order rejecting the claim of the petitioners on the ground that no prima facie ease has been made out and the claim made on belaihalf of the petitioner is tainted with malafide. 6. I also find that for finding out a prima facie case, the collector under the Act is required to scrutinise the matter and on his satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out, then only the case can be referred to the Board constituted under the Act. 7. From the order impugned, I find that the learned Collector under the Act has examined the materials and has not found the case for referring the same to the Board. 7. From the order impugned, I find that the learned Collector under the Act has examined the materials and has not found the case for referring the same to the Board. This is settled that for finding out a prima facie case, the Collector under the Act is also competent to issue notice to the land holders and is not duty bound to refer the case to the Board without examining the factual aspect of the matter. 8. In the case of Sukhdeo Paswan and others vrs. the State of Bihar and others, reported in 1993 (2) BLJR, 958 : 1993 (2) PLJR 211 and in the case of brijendra Kumar Narain Singh and others vrs. The State of Bihar and ors. reported in 1992 (2) PLJR 747, this Court has held that for coming to a correct conclusion and to find out a prima facie case, the Collector under the Act is competent to issue notice to the land-holders before reference of the case to the Board. 9. In the case of Dhanji Singh vrs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 1979 B. B. C. J.521 : 1979 PLJR 247 a Spelaicial Bench of this Court has decided that for coming to a conclusion as to whether a prima facie case is made out or not, it is incumbent upon the Collector to hear the parties and decide the question upon the materials placed by the parties. The Special bench has further held that a proceeding under section 48e of the Act is a quasi judicial proceeding and the authority under the act must be satisfied as to whether he should proceed against the land-holder in a proceeding under section 48e of the Act. The conclusion of the authority under the act, therefore, appears to be imperative and to find out a prima facie case is a condition precedent for initiation of a proceeding under section 48e of the Act. 10. In this view of the matter, I find no force in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and the procedure adopted by the Collector under the Act in passing the impugned order is permissible in law. Accordingly, this writ application is disamissed.