with reference to the orders of the D.C.L.R. and the Collector is that in view of the provisions of Section 48 (2E), (4) and (6) of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as “Act”), it is mandatory for the Board constituted to take steps for conciliation. If the parties do not appoint their own Panches, the Chairman has to appoint a person to represent a party. He has then to call upon the parties and bring about an amicable settlement. From the order-sheet of D.C.L.R., it is clear that neither of the parties i.e. petitioner, nor respondent no. 5 appointed any Panch nor the D.C.L.R., who was the Chairman of the Board, appointed any person in their case. Instead, he merely conducted an alleged spot inspection in absence of both the parties and submitted his report declaring respondent no. 5 Bataidar. When this order was challenged before the Collector in Appeal, he noticed, but dismissed it merely holding that the Chairman had noticed the parties. They did not appear and as such, he had taken all effective steps for conciliation. I am afraid that before the D.C.L.R. this point was not adjudicated. He had to take efforts for conciliation. That is mandatory and settled by catena of decisions of this court. Having failed to do so, this final order, affirmed by the Collector, cannot be sustained.
