B.P.Jha, J.

1. In an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners pray for quashing Annexure 5 contains an order passed by the District Collector, Rohtas (Respondent No. 2) for re-opening the case under Section 45B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961-(hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. By Annexure 2 the Land Reforms Deputy Collector granted two-units to Jag Narain Tiwari (husband of petitioner No. 1) and Rama Shankar Tiwary (father of petitioner No. 2). Now Jag Narain Tiwary is dead. The land Reforms Deputy Collector granted one unit to Rama Shankar Tiwary on the basis of the electoral roll as well as on the basis of the report of the Anchal Adhikari

3. By Annexure 3 the District Collector re-opened the case under Sec. 45B of the Act and transferred the same to the file of Shri R.B. Mahto, S.D.O. for disposal in accordance with law. The S.D.O. was of the opinion that the Land Reforms Deputy Collector was justified in granting, one unit to Jag Narain Tiwary and one unit to Rama Shankar Tiwari.

4. By Annexure 5 the District Collector again re-opened the matter and directed Shri B.K. Derhgawan for disposal of the matter in accordance with law. In this connection it is relevant to quote Sec. 45B of the Act which runs as follows:

45B. State Government to call for and examine record. The State Government may authorise in this behalf or call for and examine any record of any proceeding disposed of by a Collector under the Act and may, if it thinks fit, direct that the case be re-opened and disposed of afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

From the provisions quoted above it is however, clear that the Government or the Collector of the district is authorised to re-open a case which has already been disposed of by the Collector under the Act. After re-opening the case, the State Government or the District Collector will dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with Saw, It is, therefore, clear that after reopening the case, either the State Government or the District Collector himself is entitled to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The District Collector has no jurisdiction to refer the matter for disposal to any subordinate authority. In this circumstance the District Collector erred in law in directing Shri B.K Derhgawan, Land Reforms Deputy Collector to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. In my opinion, the direction given above by the District Collector is contrary to law and without jurisdiction.

5 In the result I allow this writ petition and quash the order dated 16.8.1982 as contained in Annexure 5 of the writ petition. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Chaudhary Sia Saran Sinha, J.

6 On account of the infirmity existing in the last but one paragraph of the impugned Annexure, namely, Annexure 5, I agree to the order proposed by my learned brother in para 5 of the said order.