Judgment D. P. Wadhwa, S. J. Mukhopadhya, J. 1. The appellant is the under-raiyat (Bataidar), who is respondent in the writ petition (C. W. J. C. No.799 of 1980 ). He has challenged the impugned judgment dated 13th december, 1984, passed in the said case, by which the report which was submitted by the Conciliation Board (Batai board), as well as the order which was passed by the Deputy Collector Land reforms, they have been set aside and the matter has been remitted back to the authorities. 2. A petition under Sec.48-E of the Bihar Tenancy Act was filed by the appellant claiming himself to be the under-raiyaf of writ petitioners (Ram ekbal Singh and others ). A Conciliation Board in terms with the aforesaid provisions was constituted, which submitted its report, as contained in annexure-5 to the writ petition. The said report was in favour of the appellant (Bataidar ). After hearing the parties, the respondent. Deputy Collector Land reforms, passed the order in favour of the appellant as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition. 3. The respondents, who are the landlords, they moved before this Court by filing writ-petition aforesaid, challenging the aforesaid report of the conciliation Board (Batai Board), and the order which was passed by the deputy Collector Land Reforms in favour of the appellant. It was contended by the writ petitioners (Respondents herein) that the Board submitted its report, in which the Punch of the writ-petitioners did not participate during the proceeding. This was opposed by the appellant. The learned Single Judge, while accepting that the matter relates to disputed question of facts, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the report of the board and the order passed by the deputy Collector Land Reforms and remitted the matter for fresh disposal. 4. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and have also perused the report submitted by the Batai Board, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 5. It will be evident from the said report dated 12th September, 1979 that the writ petitioners appeared before the Board and the Mukhiya was the punch of the writ petitioners, who were heard by the Batai Board. 5. It will be evident from the said report dated 12th September, 1979 that the writ petitioners appeared before the Board and the Mukhiya was the punch of the writ petitioners, who were heard by the Batai Board. Apart from the same, as the learned Single Judge accepted that the matter relates to disputed question of facts, according to us, in such a situation, the learned Single judge should not have allowed the prayer of the writ petitioners (Respondents herein ). 6. For the reasons stated above, we wet aside the impugned judgment dated 13th December, 1984, passed in c. W. J. C. No.799 of 1980. 7. In the result, the Letters Patent appeal is allowed, and the writ-petition aforesaid stands dismissed.