Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for respondents 3 to 5 and J.C. to G.P. 2 for the State. 2. By this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 20th October, 1995 as contained in Annexure 2 passed by the Collector respondent no.2 under the provisions of Bihar Tenancy Act, rejecting the claim of the petitioner under section 48 E of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Collector under the Act has rejected the claim of the petitioner without referring the matter to the Reconciliation Board nor there is anything in the order impugned to show that any effort was made by the Collector to settle the matter amicably in between the parties and, in that view of the matter, the order impugned is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5, on the other hand, submitted that the Collector under the Act having examined the claim of the petitioner and other claimants eleven in number, rejected their claim by the impugned order holding that prima facie case has not been made out by the claimants for determination of their bataidari rights over the land in question and, therefore, the Collector under the Act was well within jurisdiction to decide the matter even without referring the same to the Conciliation Board. 4. It appears that the petitioner claimed bataidari right under respondents 3 to 5 with regard to different pieces of land of different khata numbers as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ application and at the same time it also appears that altogether 12 applications under section 48-E of the Act were filed on the same day against the petitioners for detemination of their right as Bataidars over different pieces of land. From the order impugned it appears that the petitioners had not disclosed the cause of action nor they had disclosed a prima facie case showing that they were bataidars under respondents 3 to 5, rather it appears that the petitioner and other claimants had tried to grab the land of the landholders and for that a proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated and the claimants were prevented from taking possession of the land in question. The Collector under the Act as it appears from the impugned order was not satisfied from the claim of the claimants that in fact they were bataidars under the land holders rather the Collector was satisfied that attempt was made by the claimants to grab the land in question. 5. In a proceeding under section 48E of the Act it is not always necessary for the Collector under the Act to refer the matter to the Reconciliation Board. Firstly, the Collector must be satisfied that sufficient grounds have been made out for determination of the question under section 48E of the Act then only the matter is referrable to the Reconciliation Board for settlement of the dispute in between the parties. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner and other claimants filed petition under section 48 E of the Act on the same day claiming themselves as Bataidars under the landholders. It is also manifest from the order impugned that the petitioner and other claimants were prevented by drawing up a proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as they had attempted to grab the land of the landholders. The approach of the Collector under the Act thus must be held to be well within jurisdiction and this thus requires no interference by this Court. 6. In that view of the matter, this writ application is devoid of any merit. It is thus dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.