S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The meaningful questions formulated and referred for an authoritative decision by the Full Bench are in the terms following :

"(i) Whether a revenue authority is obliged to proceed afresh after coming into force of sec. 32-B of the Ceiling Act?

(ii) If the revenue authority proceeds to publish a notification under the provisions of old sec. 11(1) of the Act, would it not amount to ignoring sec. 32-B and nullifying the object in the introduction of sec. 32-B of the Ceiling Act?

(iii) Whether the failure to initiate a fresh proceeding and to publish the notification under sec. 11(1) (old) of the Ceiling Act would be non est?"

Equally at issue is the correctness of the two Division Bench judgments in Smt. Sudha Devi V/s. State of Bihar, (CWJC No. 4679 of 1982 decided on the 25th of January, 1983) and Uma Shankar Prasad Sah V/s. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 2170 of 1983 decided on the 17th of May, 1983), which, indeed, have necessitated this reference.

2. The facts giving rise to the questions aforesaid are undisputed and lie in a narrow compass. Harendra Prasad Singh, writ petitioner, is a land holder of village Manglapur, district East Champaran. A proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Ceiling Act") was initiated against him sometime in the year 1976 (vide Ceiling Case No. 285 of 1975-76). The proceeding, as is not unusual, dragged on for some years. Whilst it was pending and before the petitioner"s objection under sec. 10(3) of the Ceiling Act could be disposed of, the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act (Bihar Act 55 of 1982) (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Amending Act") was enacted and enforced by publication in the Bihar Gazette on the 30th of April, 1982 in substitution of its predecessor Ordinances. This Amending Act, like the earlier Ordinances, was to come into force retrospectively with effect from the 9th of April, 1981 and, apart from many significant changes in the existing Statute, it, inter alia, inserted sections 32A and 32B in the parent Act. The latter provision provided that every pending proceeding, which is not the subject matter of appeal, revision or review, and in which final publication under sub-section (1) of sec. 11 of the Ceiling Act, as stood before the amendment had not been made, shall be disposed of afresh in accordance with the provisions of sec. 10 of the Ceiling Act. Despite this provision, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, completely ignoring the same, and without any fresh determination, proceeded to issue a notification in terms of old sec. 11(1), which was admittedly done on the 31st of May, 1982. However, the Additional Collector, under sec. 32B of the Ceiling Act, initiated fresh proceeding against the petitioner and issued a draft statement under sec. 10(2) of the said Act and further called upon the petitioner to file objection, if any, in terms of sec. 10(3) of the Ceiling Act (vide annexure 1 dated the 17th of June, 1983). Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the quashing of the same.

3. "This writ petition originally came up for hearing before a Division Bench presided over by my learned Brother, Uday Sinha, J. Before that Bench particular reliance was placed on the cases of Smt. Sudha Devi and Umashankar Prasad Sah (supra) for the proposition that the final publication under the unamended sub-section (1) of sec. 11 of the Ceiling Act having been made even though after the enforcement of sec. 32B, the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to initiate fresh proceeding and decide the matter afresh in accordance with the amended law. Entertaining some doubts about the correctness of the ratio in the aforesaid case, the matter was referred to a Full Bench for an authoritative decision on the questions formulated and that is how it is before us now.

4. In