JUDGMENT : Ashutosh Kumar, J. 1. A rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed across the board. 2. Let it be taken on record. 3. Heard Mr. Sunil Singh, learned Advocate for the appellants, Mr. Gautam Kejriwal for the respondent nos.6 to 8 and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi for the State. 4. The appellants claim to be the bataidars, who had approached the learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Katihar (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as ‘DCLR’) under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as ‘B.T. Act’) against threatened ejectment by the private-respondents /landlords. The DCLR in Batai Case No.745 of 2011-12 passed an order on 16.06.2012 rejecting the bataidari claim of the appellants. The aforesaid order was put to challenge in C.W.J.C. No.21216 of 2012 in which a Bench of this Court, finding that proper procedure had not been followed and the case appeared to have been ante-dated without any notice to the appellants in which an order against them was passed, set aside the aforesaid order and remanded the matter to the DCLR, Katihar to decide the matter afresh on merits with the caveat that the parties were not to be allowed to file any fresh document, except original documents and the DCLR was directed by the aforesaid order dated 11.12.2014 to conclude the process within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid remand, the matter was placed before the DCLR, who, vide his order dated 14.07.2015, constituted a Conciliation Board for the needful. 6. The order passed by a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.21216 of 2012, remanding the matter to the DCLR, was also put to challenge by the private-respondents/landlords vide L.P.A. No.697 of 2015, which was dismissed by order dated 26.07.2017. 7. Before the order in L.P.A. could be passed, the DCLR, on remand, has already taken a decision to constitute a Conciliation Board for deciding the dispute between the appellants/battaidars, as claimed, and the private-respondents/landlords. 8. 7. Before the order in L.P.A. could be passed, the DCLR, on remand, has already taken a decision to constitute a Conciliation Board for deciding the dispute between the appellants/battaidars, as claimed, and the private-respondents/landlords. 8. After three years, on 05.11.2018, the DCLR, Kaithar, without any report from the Conciliation Board, passed an order rejecting the claim of the appellants of being bataidars of the private-respondents/landlords for the reason that according to the claim of the appellants, the land in question was under cultivation since 1986 but the appellants were not majors; but were minors in 1986 and, therefore, they could not have been inducted as bataidars and that at one point of time, according to their own claim, they had offered to purchase the land in question for consideration amount of Rs.3 lakhs, for which Rs.2.5 lakhs had already been paid. 9. The claim thus was not found to be tenable in the absence of any document in that regard and that even if it were true, the issue of purchase could not have been decided in a bataidari case. 10. Against the aforesaid order, the appellants preferred a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No.3195 of 2019. 11. The learned Single Judge vide his judgment and order dated 27.02.2019 rejected the claim of the appellants and sustained the order of the DCLR by holding that in the year 1986, it was self evident from the records that the appellants were 17 and 21 years of age respectively and, therefore, they could not have been inducted as bataidars and that the appellants had not made out any categorical case of their being bataidars and thus there was no necessity of constituting a Conciliation Board. 12. The learned Single Judge went on to the extent of declaring that the earlier order passed by the DCLR, constituting the Conciliation Board, did not estop him to again pass an order on merits, rejecting the claim of bataidari of the appellants in absence of any report/resolution of the Board. 13. Hence, this appeal. 14. Mr. Sunil Singh, learned Advocate has urged that the learned Single Judge did not at all take into account that once a Conciliation Board was constituted, the DCLR ought to have awaited the report/ findings of the Conciliation Board and should not have hurried to pass an order on merits without any report of the Board. Hence, this appeal. 14. Mr. Sunil Singh, learned Advocate has urged that the learned Single Judge did not at all take into account that once a Conciliation Board was constituted, the DCLR ought to have awaited the report/ findings of the Conciliation Board and should not have hurried to pass an order on merits without any report of the Board. He has further submitted that the order impugned rejecting the claim of the appellants was in teeth of the earlier order which amounted to review of the earlier order, which is impermissible in the eyes of law. If a Board has been constituted under Section 48E (3) of the B.T. Act, the procedure prescribed under Clauses 5 to 11 are compulsorily required to be followed. He has further submitted that the DCLR, giving a short-shrift to the procedure which had already been initiated and which had not reached its logical conclusion, has rendered the final order highly suspect in the eyes of law. 15. It has also been urged on behalf of the appellants that in any such batadari dispute, it is a must that a Conciliation Board be constituted and the DCLR, Katihar did not follow the mandate of law and has passed an order rejecting the claim of the appellants. 16. As opposed to the aforesaid contentions, Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, learned Advocate for the private-respondents/landlords has argued that the claim of batadari of the appellants was earlier rejected by a reasoned order on 16.06.2012. However, such order could not be sustained merely on technical reasons that from the register and diary of the proceedings, it appeared to the High Court, while hearing the matter in C.W.J.C. No.21216 of 2012, that the dates were preponed and that an order was passed in such case without any intimation to the appellants. Through it has been urged that the order so passed by the DCLR, Katihar was set aside and the matter was remanded to him but the order dated 14.07.2015 on remand, constituting a Conciliation Board for the needful was a cryptic order which did not contain any reason for constituting a Conciliation Board in the absence of appellants having established their claim as bataidars in the first instance. Thereafter, the final order was passed in 2018 by the DCLR, Katihar, debunking the entire claim of the appellants as being unacceptable. Thereafter, the final order was passed in 2018 by the DCLR, Katihar, debunking the entire claim of the appellants as being unacceptable. He further submitted that the contention of the appellants that in any batadari dispute, it is not necessary that in the first instance, a Conciliation Board has to be constituted as the Section itself prescribes that after initiating any proceeding under Section 48 E of the B.T. Act, the Collector may refer the matter to the Conciliation Board to be appointed by him for promoting settlement of dispute between underraiyatsand the landlord. Thus, an application of mind is required in the first instance with respect to a preliminary finding that an underraiyat has made out a prima facie case that he is a bataidar and he suffers from a threatened ejectment from the land by the landlord. Thus, it has been argued that the contention of the appellants that in all cases of batadari dispute, a Conciliation Board has to be constituted is not in accord with law as prescribed under Section 48 E of the B.T. Act as also the judgment of this Court in Bacchu Prasad and others Vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in 2016 (4) PLJR 189 . In the aforesaid case, which had come on remand from the Supreme Court, it has categorically been held that in such cases, the Collector does not have to undertake a mechanical approach of constituting a Conciliation Board but has to apply his mind before doing so. Any application of mind at that stage pre-supposes consideration of facts brought on record by the parties. However, if at the threshold, it is indicated by the averments of the parties, namely, tenant and the landlord, that the dispute is not bona fide or is being contested mala fide without any foundation, there would be no estopping the quasi-judicial authority, namely, the Collector, from passing an order rejecting the claim of the battaidar or of the landlord whatever may be the case. 17. However, what has been decided by a series of judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court that no two full-fledged enquiries are required to be undertaken. 17. However, what has been decided by a series of judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court that no two full-fledged enquiries are required to be undertaken. This, therefore, prima facie means that at the threshold stage, a Collector on learning about the dispute between an undertenant and the landlord suo motu or at the instance of a tenant, has to apply his mind and in case it is found that the dispute is bona fide with respect to the claim of the tenancy as also of the threatened ejectment, the first step is to constitute a Conciliation Board for undertaking settlement between the warring landlord and the undertenant. No detailed order is required to be passed at that stage, when the Collector finds the dispute to be bona fide and refers the matter to the Conciliation Board, after constituting the same. 18. In response to the aforesaid contention, Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in point of law in adverting to the claim of the landlord and rejecting the claim of the battaidars/appellants on account of some vagueness in the claim especially with respect to the age of the appellants at the time when the tenancy was said to have been created. The learned Single Judge may not have been absolutely wrong in computing the age of the appellants at the time of creation of the tenancy but what was ignored was that once a decision has been taken at the threshold stage, after the remand, of constituting a Conciliation Board for effective settlement of dispute between the landlord and undertenant, such a decision ought not to have been given a short-shrift and the matter had to be taken to its logical conclusion. This definitely amounts to review of an earlier order passed by the predecessor in office and that also without any reason. 19. After having gone through the records of the case, we are at loss to know as to what prompted the DCLR, Katihar to retrieve the case to his file and pass an order on merits. This definitely amounts to review of an earlier order passed by the predecessor in office and that also without any reason. 19. After having gone through the records of the case, we are at loss to know as to what prompted the DCLR, Katihar to retrieve the case to his file and pass an order on merits. We do appreciate that three years have passed by since the first order was passed by the predecessor authority, constituting the Board and there had not been any report regarding the finding of the Board with respect to the dispute between the appellants and the private-respondents but without any effort from either side, the matter was taken up by the DCLR, Katihar when the final order rejecting the claim of the appellants was passed. 20. Was the delay in disposal of the proceeding an impelling motive for the concerned officer to take-up the matter for a final decision or something else is still an enigma to us. Had the reason of delay in conclusion of the proceeding been the motive for taking up the matter again, there could have been some plausible justification. However, we find that there is nothing on record to suggest that such delay was brought to the notice of the authority and that the proceedings were conducted as if it had come before the authority afresh for his consideration. This has led to the order of DCLR, rejecting the claim of the appellants, highly suspect in the eyes of law and therefore unsustainable. This aspect of the matter has been lost sight of by the learned Single Judge in deciding the merits of this case with respect to the age of the appellants at the time when the tenancy is said to have been created. The landlord may have a good case but if a proceeding has been initiated under Section 48 E of the B.T. Act, the procedure ingrained therein is required to be followed. By now, it is cadit quaestio that the law must take its own course and if a particular procedure is provided, such procedure must be followed or else even if the end result is correct factually, it shall not be sustainable in the eyes of law for the breach of the procedure. 21. By now, it is cadit quaestio that the law must take its own course and if a particular procedure is provided, such procedure must be followed or else even if the end result is correct factually, it shall not be sustainable in the eyes of law for the breach of the procedure. 21. In the ultimate analysis, we find that even though the claim of the bataidar may be weak but once a Conciliation Board was constituted after the remand of the matter before the concerned officer, it should have been allowed to be taken to a logical conclusion. It was open for the Collector to have differed with the finding of the Board if so found expedient in the interest of justice, but passing an order on a petition which has gone out of the domain of the officer concerned makes it highly unsustainable in the eyes of law. 22. For the aforesaid reasons , we set aside the order dated 05.11.2018 passed by the DCLR, Katihar in Batai Case No.745 of 2011-12 rejecting the claim of the appellants as also the order of the learned Single Judge by which the order of the DCLR has been sustained. The matter is remanded to the DCLR, Katihar for awaiting the report of the Conciliation Board and, thereafter, for him to pass an order in accordance with law. The DCLR, Katihar would be well advised to refer the matter to the Conciliation Board afresh within a period of two weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order with an indication that it must come to a necessary finding within the stipulated period as provided under the Act and the Rules and thereafter the DCLR, Katihar shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and shall make available to the parties copy of such order. The entire exercise must be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt /production of a copy of this order before DCLR. 23. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the appeal stands allowed.