ORDER In all the writ petitions as similar orders are under challenge, the landholders are common; the common question of law involved hey were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners of all the three writ petitions have challenged the similar orders all dated 18th September, 1997, whereby and whereunder the applications preferred by them under section 48(E) of the B.T. Act were rejected without constitution of a Board for amicable settlement. 3. The admitted fact shows that the petitioners claimed themselves under-raiyats of the landholders Ram Nand Singh and Sachida Nand Singh in respect of two different set of lands. They filed applications under Section 48E, which were registered as case Nos. 18 of 1996-97, 17 of 1996-97 and 16 of 1996-97. The land holders were noticed, who appeared and opposed the application at the initial stage. It was pleaded that the petitioners in-fact wanted to purchase the lands at a low price and on refusal the frivolous applications were preferred by them to give undue pressure on the land holders. The aforesaid plea was accepted by the D.C.L.R who rejected the applications at the initial stage by the similar impugned orders. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the land holders respondents has drawn my attention towards Annexure-2 to the writ petition, the application as was preferred by the petitioners. It was submitted that even the petitioners accepted that dispute was relating to sale and purchase of the lands in question. Reliance was placed on a Special Bench decision of this Court In Dhanji Singh's case, reported in 1979 B.B.C.J. page 521 : 1979 PLJR 247. It was submitted that the Collector is required to be satisfied about the bonafide of the dispute before initiation of the proceeding. Even hearing of the land holder is not obligatory. 5. Heard the parties. In the present case I find that the aforesaid principle of law is not applicable. Though the Collector under the Act has jurisdiction to look into the bonafide of an application to find out whether this is frivolous or not, but for such rejection, a reasoned order is required to be passed, either based on evidence or giving a cogent reason for the same. Though the Collector under the Act has jurisdiction to look into the bonafide of an application to find out whether this is frivolous or not, but for such rejection, a reasoned order is required to be passed, either based on evidence or giving a cogent reason for the same. Under the provisions of Sec. 48E of the Act the claim of Bataidari rights normally is to be resolved by a Bataidari Board, either by amicable settlement or in failure by holding enquiry to be conducted by the Board itself. The Collector under the Act has to merely satisfy himself that there is no malicious, frivolous or vexatious claim. In this connection, one may refer the decision of this Court in Dinesh Murmu's case as reported in 1998(1) PLJR 110. 6. From the application as was preferred by the petitioners, it cannot be presumed that the petitioners filed such application as they failed to purchase the lands from the land holders. In their applications, they merely mentioned their intention that they were even ready to purchase the lands. Mere mentioning of such intention cannot be ground to hold that the applications itself were frivolous. 7. Accordingly, the impugned orders, all dated 18th September, 1997, are set aside and the case nos. 16 of 1996-97;17 of 199697 and 18 of 1996-97 are remitted to the D.C.L.R. concerned for fresh decision in accordance with law, after constitution of Board to make endeavour for amicable settlement. 8. These writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations/directions.