K. B. N. Singh, P. S. Sahay, J.

1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing an order dated the 10th March, 1975 (Annexure 2) of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hilsa, as also an order dated the 31st July, 1976 (Annexure 4), of the District Magistrate and Collector of Nalanda (Respondent No.4), directing him to remove encroachment from gairmazrua am land.

2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ application need be stated A proceeding under section 3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was started against the petitioner by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms Hilsa (Respondent No.2), in August, 1974. on the allegation that the petitioner had encroached upon 115 ares of land of Plot No.1329, Khata No.269, Touzi No.6344, situated in village makrauta, Police Station Hilsa, in the District of Nalanda, which is recorded as gairmazurua am Pokhar in the survey record of rights On the 10th March, 1975, Respondent No.2, after rejecting the petitioners prayer for time, in an ex parte order decided the proceeding against the petitioner. A copy of the said order of Respondent No.2 has been filed as Annexure 2. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 11 of the Act before the District Judge of Patna, the appellate authority under that section, which was registered as miscellaneous Appeal No.64 of 1975, and was admitted on the 20th May, 1975. During the pendency of the appeal before the District Judge, the Government of bihar promulgated an Ordinance The Bihar Public Land Encroachment (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 (Bihar Ordinance No.210 of 1975 ). Sec.6 of the Ordinance repealed section 11 of the Act and substituted a new section for it. The new section 11 provided for filing of appeal before the Collector of the District or before the Divisional Commissioner, and not before the District judge or the High Court, as provided in the repealed section 11. Thereafter, treating that the new provision of section 11 divested the District Judge of the power to hear the appeal, the District Judge of Patna as it appears from order dated the 22nd May, 1976 (Annexure 3) transferred the appeal pending before him to the Collector of Patna, for disposal, and, the Collector, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal on the 31st July, 1976, by order Annexure 4, which is under challenge in this writ application.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State denying some of the assertions of facts made in the writ application, which it is not necessary for us to mention, in view of the order that we propose to pass in this writ application.

4. Mr. Shanker Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has urged that the petitioner having filed an appeal before the District judge, as provided under the old section 11 of the Act, the appeal had to be decided by the District Judge. The Ordinance not having retrospectively amended section 11 of the Act, the District Judge had no jurisdiction to transfer the appeal to the Collector, and that has affected the petitioners vested right to have the appeal decided by the District Judge, where he could have appreciated of law and facts.

5. In view of the submissions made the question that falls for consideration in this writ application is as to whether, in view of the new provisions of section 11, the District Judge was divested of his jurisdiction to hear the appeal pending before him. We want to make it clear that the question of vires of the new section 11 of the Act has not been raised before us and our decision should not be construed one way or the other in this regard.

6. On a reference to the provisions of Ordinance No.20 of 1975, and the later Ordinance, which replaced it, namely, Ordinance No.33 of 1976, it is apparent that the provisions of the Ordinance substituting section 11 of the Act are prospective and not retrospective. It is thus manifest that the a