Judgment N. Pandey, J. In all the abovementioned three writ petitions, since a common question has been raised, therefore they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners in all three cases are claiming bataidari right with respect to the land in dispute. Therefore, on their applications under Section 48 E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, different proceedings were registered under Section 48E of the Act. It appears, the claim of the petitioners of bataidari right has been rejected by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, on the ground that they have failed to show that they are in cultivating possession of the land for more than 12 years. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the, petitioners, contended that from a bare reference to the provisions of Section 48E as well as decisions' in the case of Upendra Mandal and others v. State of Bihar & others ( 1989 PLJR 333 ) and CWJC No. 502 of 1986 and analogous cases, disposed of on 14.10.1996 (unreported), it would appear that the provisions of Section 48-C of the Act has no relevance in the matter relating to the claim of the bataidari right under Section 48E of the Act. In other words, it is not necessary for an under raiyat to establish that he was in continuous possession of the land for 12 years. 4. Therefore, having regard to the acts noticed above as well as the decision of this Court in the case of Upendra Mandal and others (supra), I set aside the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, contained in Annexure 1 in all the cases and remit the matter Jack to him for a fresh decision in accordance with law after due notice to the concerned parties. 5. With the aforesaid, all the three writ petitions are disposed of. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.