ORDER Heard the parties. This is, in fact, second round of litigation between the parties before this Court. The dispute between the parties with respect to the lands under dispute had travelled to this Court earlier in CWJC No. 577 of 1998 filed on behalf of the respondent No.4. While passing the final order dated 17.05.1999 (Annexure-6) in aforesaid CWJC No. 577 of 1998, the matter was remitted back to the respondent S. D. O., Dhamdaha with a direction to consider as to whether claim raised on behalf of the petitioner under Section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (in short “B.T. Act”) with respect to the lands under dispute was maintainable in view of claim raised on behalf of the landholder/original raiyat that he and his family members are protected under Section 48C of the B.T. Act. 2. From the findings recorded by the respondent S.D.O., Dhamdaha in the impugned appellate order dated 30.11.2007 (Annexure-1) passed in Revenue Appeal No. 30 of 2004, it appears that although the petitioner claims to be Sikmidar/under-raiyat over the lands under dispute, but he is the owner of larger area of lands than the respondent no.4. In other words, the petitioner is richer than the respondent no.4. 3. In view of order of remand, subsequently passed by the respondent S. D. O., Dhamdaha the claim of the petitioner was decided afresh by order dated 22.03.2004 (Annexure-2) passed in Case No. 15 of 1995-96 by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, although learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties submits that the actual date of order is 27.03.2004 and not 22.03.2004. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner was declared raiyat with respect to 3.31 acres of lands in terms of Section 48D of the B.T. Act. However, the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Barhara Kothi while passing the final order has not taken pains to consider as to whether the landlord respondent no. 4 was protected under Section 48C of the B.T. Act or not? If the landlord was protected under Section 48C of the B.T. Act, then certainly the petitioner, claiming to be under-raiyat/Sikmidar with respect to the lands under dispute shall not acquire the status of occupancy under raiyat, though he may continue to remain as non-occupancy under raiyat. 4 was protected under Section 48C of the B.T. Act or not? If the landlord was protected under Section 48C of the B.T. Act, then certainly the petitioner, claiming to be under-raiyat/Sikmidar with respect to the lands under dispute shall not acquire the status of occupancy under raiyat, though he may continue to remain as non-occupancy under raiyat. If the petitioner cannot acquire the status of occupancy under raiyat, then his claim under Section 48D of the B.T. Act was completely misconceived and ought to have been rejected by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, but that issue has not been decided despite observations made by this Court on previous occasion in the order dated 17.05.1999 (Annexure-6) passed in CWJC No. 577 of 1998, yet the claim of the petitioner was allowed vide order contained in Annexure-2. 4. The respondent no. 4, being aggrieved by the aforesaid final order dated 22.03.2004 (Annexure-2) passed by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Barhara Kothi, preferred appeal before the respondent S.D.O., Dhamdaha giving rise to Revenue Appeal No. 30 of 2004, which has finally been allowed by the impugned appellate order dated 30.11.2007 (Annexure-1). While passing the impugned appellate order, the respondent S.D.O., Dhamdaha although has recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner is having altogether more than 17 acres of land, but he has not conclusively recorded any finding of fact that the respondent no. 4 was protected under Section 48C of the B.T. Act and, therefore, the claim of the writ petitioner under Section 48D of the B.T. Act was not maintainable. These are the issues of facts, which were required to be gone into by the statutory authorities and specific findings of facts were required to be recorded by them and only thereafter they could have passed their final orders; unfortunately the respondent Anchal Adhikari and the respondent S.D.O., both passed their final orders, one in favour of the petitioner and other in favour of the respondent no. 4, but they have not recorded their conclusive findings with respect to application of Section 48C of the B. T. Act. Thereafter, validity and correctness of the orders passed by them can not be properly and effectively examined in the present proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. 4, but they have not recorded their conclusive findings with respect to application of Section 48C of the B. T. Act. Thereafter, validity and correctness of the orders passed by them can not be properly and effectively examined in the present proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Recently this Court had occasion to consider the scheme, scope and mandate of Section 48D of the B.T. Act in an unreported judgment dated 04.07.2013 passed in CWJC No. 1762 of 2007 (Pulin Bihari Das & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). In the aforesaid case, it has been enunciated by this Court that the provisions under Section 48D of the B.T. Act are benevolent in nature for the occupancy under raiyat, but it is very harsh and detrimental in nature so far the landholders/ raiyats are concerned. For better appreciation, paragraph-6 and 7 of the aforesaid judgment/order is produced herein below:– “6. Section 48D of the B.T. Act provides that if an occupancy under-raiyat over a plot of land files an application in the prescribed manner, then he shall be entitled to acquire the right of a raiyat with respect to that plot of land subject to payments to be made by him as prescribed by the State Government to the land holder. It further provides that if the application under Section 48D of the B.T. Act of an occupancy under-raiyat is allowed, then the right of the land holder shall extinguish with respect to that plot of land and thereafter, an occupancy under-raiyat shall become a raiyat for all purposes with respect to that plot. The provisions under Section 48D of the B.T. Act are benevolent in nature for the occupancy under raiyat, but it is very harsh and detrimental in nature so far the land holders are concerned. Therefore, for passing an order against the land holder under Section 48D of the B.T. Act, the procedure prescribed under the B.T.Act and rules made thereunder must be followed, since it takes away all the valuable rights of a land holder in land so claimed. 7. Therefore, for passing an order against the land holder under Section 48D of the B.T. Act, the procedure prescribed under the B.T.Act and rules made thereunder must be followed, since it takes away all the valuable rights of a land holder in land so claimed. 7. For determination of the right of an occupancy under-raiyat under Section 48D of the B.T.Act, the provisions under Sections 48C and 48D of the B.T.Act are required to be read conjointly, since Section 48C of the B.T.Act provides as to how an under-raiyat shall become an occupancy under-raiyat after his continuous possession for more than 12 years over a plot of land. However, there are certain riders under Section 48C of the B.T.Act. For implementation of Section 48D of the B.T.Act a rule has also been framed by the State Government, which is known as the Bihar Tenancy (Amendment) Rules, 1992. Rule 1A prescribes that an application under Section 48D of the B.T.Act has to be filed in the prescribed form “C” disclosing all the relevant facts with respect to the lands under dispute as also the full details of the raiyat. Thereafter, the Anchaladhikari is required to give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties and to adduce evidence in support of their claims, and only thereafter, he is required to pass an order either accepting the claim or rejecting such claim of an occupancy under-raiyat under Section 48D of the B.T.Act. If procedure prescribed is not followed by the Anchaladhikari, then that may vitiate the entire proceeding and the order passed may not withstand the test of law.” 6. In view of the factual background of the case and in view of legal position, noted above, this Court is of the opinion that entire matter requires reconsideration and fresh decision right from very beginning by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Barahara Kothi. 7. In view of the factual background of the case and in view of legal position, noted above, this Court is of the opinion that entire matter requires reconsideration and fresh decision right from very beginning by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Barahara Kothi. 7. In the result, the order dated 22.03.2004 or 27.03.2004, as the case may be, as contained in Annexure-2, passed in Case No. 15 of 1995-96 by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Barahara Kothi as also the impugned appellate order dated 30.11.2007 (Annexure-1) passed in Revenue Appeal Case No. 30 of 2004 by the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhamdaha are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Barahara Kothi, with a direction to decide the matter afresh strictly in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, but by keeping in mind the observation made in the present order and law enunciated by this Court in the case of Pulin Bihari Das Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors (supra). Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.