JUDGMENT Gurusharna Sharma, J. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the land in question in village Semari, District Rohtas, whereas Respondent no. 3 to 5 claim to be the bataidar thereof. 2. On the basis of the police report dated 18.12.1975 (Annexure – B to the counter affidavit file on behalf of Respondent no. 3 to 5) a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was started between the Respondents as second party thereof. It related to total 13.63 acres land. A proceeding under Section 145 of the Code thereafter was initiated vide case no. 449 of 1975. 3. During the pendency of the said proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a petition (Annexure-2) under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was filed. It was registered as case no. 586(M) of 1976. By order dated 30.7.1977 (Annexure-3) the learned Sub-Divisional Officer dropped the said proceeding with a liberty to the alleged bataidar to file such petition after they succeed in proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. An Appeal bearing Misc. case no. 414 of 1977 was preferred before the Collector, which was rejected as not maintainable on 13/17.2.1983 (Annexure-4). 4. In the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code, final order was passed on 26/29.6.1989 (Annexure-1), wherein the petitioners possession over the land in question was declared. The Respondent herein preferred Cr. Revision no. 1222 of 1989 in this Court, but the same was dismissed on 23.3.1983 (Annexure-5). 5. However, there after on 5.11.1984, the Respondents 3 to 5 filed a petition (Annexure-6) purporting to be under Section 48 E of the Act, before the Sub-Divisional Officer Respondent no.2. It was registered as case no. 1204 of 1984. The Sub Divisional Officer called for a report from the Anchal Adhikari. The Anchal Adhikari submitted his report (Annexure-7) in favour of the petitioners. In the meantime, the petitioners filed a petition (Annexure-8) challenging the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer to initiate, entertain and adjudicate a proceeding under Section 48 E of the Act, which was rejected on 9/14.4.1995 (Annexure-9) and a Reconciliation Board was directed to be constituted. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 3 to 5 it has, inter-alia, been stated that they were bataiders over the land in question since 1958. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 3 to 5 it has, inter-alia, been stated that they were bataiders over the land in question since 1958. In the family partition the Respondents claim to have also partitioned the land over which they were bataiders. In this regard a copy of the partition deed dated 5.6.1967 has been annexed as Annexure-A, to the counter-affidavit. They have also annexed certain letters (Annexure - C series) showing relationship of landlord and bataider between the parties. 7. In the proceeding under Section 145, the Respondents claimed cultivating possession of the land in question as bataiders, but did not take any step in the matter. No evidence was adduced by them. This Court in the aforesaid Revision application found that even on the direction of the Court, they failed to produce any witness, whatsoever, In the said Revision case this Court found that at the time of initiation of the proceedings under Sections 144 and 145 of the Code, there was no trace of any proceeding under Section 48 E of the Act. 8. So far as the question of physical possession over the land in question is concerned, in my opinion unless the final order passed in this regard under Section 145 of the Code is set aside by the competent court of civil jurisdiction, the claim of the Respondents 3 to 5 as bataiders over the same and their apprehension of being evicted therefore cannot be entertained under Section 48E of the Act, The said order is binding on parties. In this regard the Sub-Divisional Officer, Respondent no.2, has also not taken into consideration the report of the Anchal Adhikari (Annexure-7). Which also goes against the claim of Respondent nos. 3 to 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any basis for initiating a proceeding under Section 48E of the Act at this stage at the instance of Respondents 3 to 5 and as such I have no option but quash the impugned order dated 9.4.1985 (Annexure-9). Consequently, the proceeding under Section 48E of the Act, bearing case no 1204 of 1985 is also quashed. 9. In the result, this writ application is allowed.