B.P.JHA, J.

1. In an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, these petitioners pray for quashing annexures-1 and 2. Annexure-1 contains the order of the District Collector under Sec. 46-B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Annexure-2 contains the order of the deputy Collector, Land Reforms, after reopening the case under Sec. 45-B of the Act.

2. In the present case there was a proceeding against the petitioners in Ceiling case No. 10/73-74. In that proceeding the matter went up to the High Court. The High 277 Court remanded the case to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms - vide Annexure-3, for a fresh decision in accordance with law. On remand the Land Reforms Deputy Collector examined the matter and delivered his judgement - vide Annexure-5.

3. The point for consideration in Annexure-5 was in respect of the age of Amar Kumar Singh as well as in respect of classification of lands. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector held that Amar Kumar Singh attained majority on 9-9-1990 on the basis of the materials on record. He also classified the lands in third and fourth categories This very matter was reopened by the Collector-vide Annexure-1. After reopening the Land Reforms Deputy Collector delivered his judgement - vide Annexure-2. In Annexure-2 it has been held that Amar Kumar Singh had not attained majority on 9-9-1970. This finding is based on no evidence. Earlier, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector considered medical certificate and other affidavits of the point of age of Amar Kumar Singh-vide Annexure-5. But, after reopening, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector did not consider any of the materials already considered in Annexure-5. Hence, I am of the opinion that the finding of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector in respect of the are of Amar Kumar Singh is based on no material.

4. So far as the classification of the lands is concerned, it has been held by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector that the lands in question are being irrigated by the Kosi Project. There is no finding to the effect that the lands were being irrigated by the Kosi Project on 9-9-1990. In the absence of such a finding or evidence, I am unable to uphold the finding of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector in this connection. Hence, in view of these infirmities, I quash Annexure-2.

5. Another question for decision is whether a case of this type can be reopened by the District Collector under Sec. 45-B of the Act or not. The Collector of the District or the State Government can reopen a ceiling case under Sec. 45-B of the Act on the Round that there are appellant mistakes on the face of the record. The Collector can also reopen the case under Sec. 45-B of the Act if there has been no decision on the merits of the case. If a case has been dropped without considering the merits of the case, then it is a fit case in which the District Collector or the State Government can reopen the matter. The District Collector can also reopen a case if it is found subsequently by the authorities that the land-holder is in excess possession of the lands, for example, if a land-holder had filed his return in respect of 100 bighas of land only, but subsequently the Collector came to know that the land-holder is in possession of 500 bighas of land, then certainly it is a case of reopening. In my opinion, the Collector should apply his mind before reopening the case and he should not act in a mechanical way. The order of reopening should also be passed after hearing the parties concerned. So far as the present case is concerned, it do not appear that the petitioners were heard before passing the order contained in Annexure-1. in view of this infirmity I quash Annexure-1 as well.

6. In the result, the application is allowed and annexures 1 and 2 are hereby quashed. Parties shall bear their own cost.

7. CHAUDHARY SIA SARAN SINHA, J. :-

I agree to the order proposed by my