Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. In the present writ application the petitioners, who claim to be Bataidars of respondents nos.3 to 5 over the lands bearing plot Nos.1605,369 and 375/76 comprising an area of 11,16.2 and 17.6 decimals respectively, have prayed for quashing of the order passed by the Land reforms Deputy Collector, Khagaria (respondent No.2) on 11-8-94 in Batai case Nos.144/75-76 and 116/74-75 dismissing the said cases initiated on the application of the petitioners solely on the ground that the respondents being small landlords were protected by the rights guaranteed to them under section 48-C of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Further, a prayer has been made to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess them and dispose of the two bataidari cases in accordance with law. 2. This writ-petition was admitted for hearing on 25-3-85 and has been pending in this Court for now almost eleven years. 3. In short, the relevant facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioners having claimed to be landless persons and maintaining themselves by cultivating lands of the concerned respondents on Batai and by doing some other manual works, and being threatened of ejectment by their aforementioned landlords, filed the aforementioned Bataidari cases under section 48-E of the Act. it appears that the Batai Board upheld the claim of the petitionecs and recommended to the land Reforms Deputy Collector in their favour and the L. R. D. C. affirmed the findings Of the Bataidari Board holding them to be Bataidars over the said lands. The respondents-landlords preferred appeal before the Additional collector, who also finding no illegality in the orders of the Bataidari Board and that of the L. R. D. S. , rejected the appeals. Thereafter, the respondents filed writ cases being C. W. J. C. Nos.793/78 and 1326/78, which were finally allowed by this Court vide order contained in annexure-I and both the matters were remitted to the Collector for fresh constitution of the Board in accordance with law after issuing notices to the parties concerned. On receipt of the said orders of this Court the L. R. D. C. heard the parties and finally rejected the bataidari cases by the impugned orders contained in Annexures 2 and 3. 4. On receipt of the said orders of this Court the L. R. D. C. heard the parties and finally rejected the bataidari cases by the impugned orders contained in Annexures 2 and 3. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5. In the said counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioners never cultivated the lands of respondent Nos.3 to 5 on Bataidari. In paragraph 4 it- is stated that the father of respondent No.4 was never a big landlord and that the family possesses land within the ceiling area. It is further stated that respondent nos.3 to 5 have got establishment of doing agricultural operations and they always cultivate their entire lands themselves. It is also alleged that the petitioners have no conceded whatsoever with the aforesaid lands and they have laid false claim at the instigation of the extremists. It is further alleged that the petitioners are in service in Punjab and the pairvi of the present case is not being made by them but by a stranger, who claims himself to be a pairvikar. The respondents have also emphatically denied about the claim of the petitioners towards distribution of the crops between them and the landlords. It is also contended that the petitioners have preferred a single writ-petition with respect to two orders passed in the two different bataidari proceedings, which is not maintainable and the petitioners must confine themselves to only one of the two orders either annexure 2 or 3 of the writ-petition.5. In this regard the learned Counsel for the petitioners however, points out that in fact the impugned order is one, i. e. annexure-2 which disposes of both the Bataidari cases, as is also evident from the impugned order-Annexure 3, which only refers to the order (annexure 2) for disposal of Bataidari case No.116/74-75. It is contended by mr. Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioners that by the impugned order the claim of the petitioners have been rejected merely on the ground that the provisions contained in Sec.48-C of the Act bars acquisition of occupancy rights by under-raiyat with respect to small cultivation and thus, the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 48-C of the Act is not maintainable. According to the learned counsel, there is absolutely nothing in section 48-C of the Act to debar the under raiyats from claiming prevention of threatened ejectment and restoration to possession in case they are unlawfully ejected. It is thus, submitted that the impugned orders are bad in law and fit to be set aside. 6. This Court in several decisions reported in 1989 PLJR 333, 1990 BBCJ 181 and 1993 (2) PLJR 232, held that though under- raiyat does not get occupancy rights if the land held by the landlord does not exceed 5 acres of irrigated land or 10 acres of other land or falls under other circumstances, as mentioned under clause (a) of the proviso to section 48-C, the provision of section 48-E is maintainable irrespective of the fact whether the under-raiyat has acquired the right of occupancy or not. In view of the settled law, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 7. However, as it has been bothering me for quite some time as to how a small landlord/cultivator will not get any protection from the application of section 48-E of the Act when while incorporating the provisions contained in section 48-C the Legislature has given them protection by adding proviso to it that an under-raiyat shall not, irrespective of the duration of his holding any land as an under-raiyat acquires the right of occupancy over the lands of the small cultivators possessing less than 5 acres of irrigated lands and 10 acres of other lands and the same does not appear to have/been considered in the decisions referred to above, I wish to deal with that aspect. 8. Section 48-C of the Act deals here, with acquisition of right of occupancy by under-raiyat whereas, Sec.48-E of the Act is a provision to prevent threatened ejectment of under raiyat and restoration to possession under raiyat unlawfully ejected. Under section 48-C, as I have already noticed above, the small landlords/cultivators have been protected from under raiyats claimed occupancy rights over such lands held by them, whereas there is no such protection given to such landlords under Sec.48-E. Obviously because no-occupancy right to hold land is created under Sec.48-E, under section 48-C occupancy right is created in an under raiyat if he holds land for a period of 12 years. Under Sec.48-E the under raiyat threatened with ejectment or unlawfully ejected by the landlord irrespective of being a small or big landlord has been protected. The small landlord covered by the provision contained in clause (ii) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Sec.48-C can claims for ejection of under raiyat under section 49 (d) on the ground that the status of such raiyat has changed and the raiyat intends to cultivate the lands personally. There appears to be some rationale behind the protection given to small landlords under Sec.48-C of the Act as in the case of Sec.48-E, where under-raryat holds the land of any persons mentioned in clause (ii) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Sec.48-C he can be ejected under Sec.49 (d)on the ground that the status of the raiyats mentioned in the said clause has changed and the raiyat intends to cultivate the land personally, otherwise the under raiyat has been given protection under Sec.48-C from being ejected from the land pf the small cultivators even. 9. However, as in the present case it is not clear as to whether the petitioners contained to be in possession of the lands in question as bataidars even after the impugned orders were passed on 11-8-84, i. e. now more than twelve years back, I consider it expedient to remit the matter back to the L. R. D. C. for fresh consideration by taking into consideration the entire aspects including the fact as to whether the petitioners have been ejected from the lands for twelve years or more or not and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. 10. It is needless to add that the concerned respondents will also be at liberty to take recourse to the provisions contained in Sec.49 (d) of the Act is so advised in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. In the result, the writ application is allowed, but without costs. Application Allowed.