Judgment 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order of the writ Court dated 4.4.2002 in C.W.J.C. No. 4271 of 2002 whereby, in view of the earlier direction of this Court in L.P.A. No. 365 of 2000 disposed of on 12.1.2001, it refused to interfere with the order of the Collector under the Bihar Tenancy Act by which finding a bonafide dispute between the parties he had directed a proceeding under Section 48E of the Act to be initiated and directed the parties to nominate their panches. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the Collector under the Act has erred in not deciding as to whether the land in question was an agricultural land or not and he should have finally decided the dispute between the parties in favour of the appellant-the writ petitioner. 3. We have perused the direction of this Court in L.P.A. No. 365 of 2000 which goes to show that the Collector under the Act was directed to decide as to whether a bonafide dispute existed between the parties or not. It was further directed that he should hear both the parties and take a decision with regard to the said matter within two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of the order of this Court and in case he came to the conclusion that a bonafide land dispute existed between the parties, he was further directed to proceed under Section 48E of the Act, which is exactly what he has done. Once finding a bonafide dispute between the parties he has proceeded under Section 48E of the Act. The learned writ court rightly did not interfere with the said order. 4. We do not find any error in the judgment requiring interference by this Court. 5. Dismissed.