1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants 1 and 2 against the decision of the lower appellate court in a suit for declaration that certain orders passed in a proceeding under S. 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are without jurisdiction and for a decree for recovery of possession of the land in dispute with mesne profits. The State of Bihar and the Sub-divisional Officer, Aurangabad, who had passed the orders in the impugned proceedings were added as defendants 3 and 4 after filing of the suit, but were later expugned. Two questions have been raised in this appeal, namely, (1) whether the suit is at all maintainable; and (2) whether the State of Bihar and the Sub-divisional Officer, Aurangabad are necessary parties to the suit, in whose absence the suit cannot be decreed. A learned single Judge, who heard the second appeal earlier has referred it to a Division Bench.

2. In the month of Sept., 1964 a sale deed was executed in regard to the suit land, fully detailed in the plaint, by Juga Singh, the defendant No. 5, in favour of the plaintiff. On the 30th of Sept., 1964 the defendant appellants filed an application under S. 16 (3) of the Act which was registered as Case No. 16 of 1964-65 by the authority, i. e., the Sub-divisional Officer, Aurangabad, who is the Collector for the purposes of the Act. The defendants claimed that they are neighbouring raiyats and are entitled to pre-empt. The Sub-divisional Officer entertained the application and passed an order on that very day directing the deposit of the consideration money along with the additional amount of ten percent. The claim was contested by the present plaintiff, but ultimately the prayer for pre-emption was allowed on the 6th of Dec., 1965. An appeal provided under the Act was filed and was also dismissed on the 3rd of Aug., 1966. On the 18th of Aug., 1966 the present suit was filed and several grounds were taken in the plaint. Subsequently an amendment of the plaint was allowed whereby it was pleaded that since the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was registered on the 2nd of Dec., 1964, the proceeding in Case No. 16 of 1964-65, having been started on the 30th of Sept., 1964 was without jurisdiction.

3. The suit was defended by the appellants inter alia, on the grounds that the State of Bihar and the Sub-divisional Officer, Aurangabad, who is Collector under the Act and had passed the order dated the 6th of Dec., 1965 in the proceeding were necessary parties; and, that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but on appeal by the plaintiff, the lower appellate court has decreed it. It has been held that the orders passed in the impugned proceedings were without jurisdiction and void and the sale deed executed in pursuance of the order in the proceedings did not confer any right, title or interest on the defendants. The reliefs asked for in the plaint have been granted.

5. Mr. Prem Lal appearing for the appellants has contended that the decision of the lower appellate court is erroneous and illegal on both the points formulated above.

6. On the question whether the State of Bihar and the Subdivisional Officer are necessary parties to the suit or not, we think that the answer is dependent on the point whether the impugned decision passed in the proceeding is completely void or not. If the finding be in favour of the order being void and nullity, in that event, the Civil Court has merely to ignore the same collaterally. It will not be necessary in that case to set aside the order, and the presence of the State of Bihar and Subdivisional Officer cannot be insisted upon. If, on the other hand, it is held that the order passed by the Subdivisional Officer is not without jurisdiction, then in view of the decision which we are proposing to give on the second point, the suit will have