B.P.Jha, J.

1. In an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, these petitioners pray for quashing an order dated 3rd August, 1982, contained in An-nexure-1, and the other subsequent orders.

2. In the present case, the Additional Collector granted four units to the landholders. These petitioners were in possession of 119.81 acres of Class IV lands. It is relevant to quote the genealogy given at page 7 of the writ petition which is as follows :

Chandraman Rai

|

_____________________|______________________

| |

Lal Babu Rai (Deceased) Yamuna Rai-Petitioner No. 1

| |

= Raj Kali Kuer-Petitioner No. 3 = Surajyoti Devi

| |

_____________|__________ |

| | |

Satyadeo Pd. Jaganath Pd. |

Petitioner No. 4 Petitioner No. 5 |

| | |

= Phul Kumari Devi = Taranath Devi |

| | |

_______|_______________ | |

| | | | |

Bina Rameshwar Rajeshwar | |

Kumari Prasad Prasad | |

| |

______________|_________________ |

| | | |

Bimla Kumari Bijoy Kumar Sanjoy Kumari |

|

_____________________|______________

| |

Inderjit Rai-Petitioner No. 2 Mithliesh Kumar

|

= Ram Pati

|

Binod Prasad

The Additional Collector has accepted this genealogy. He granted four units-- one each to (I) Yamuna Rai, (2) Raj Kali Kuer, (3) Satyadeo Prasad, and (4) Jaganath Prasad. The matter was reported to the State Government, and the State Government directed to reopen the case. The order for reopening the case is mentioned in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit.

3 It is mentioned in Annexure-A that under Sec. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, after the death of Lal Babu Rai in the year 1978, Jamuna Rai will be deemed to be separate. In the opinion of the State Government, Yamuna Rai is entitled to one unit. It is for this reason that the State Government directed the authority concerned to reopen the case under Sec. 45-B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

4. Before ordering to reopen the case, the State Government did not issue notice to the petitioners. It has been consistently held by this Court that before reopening a case, either the State Government or the District Collector must issue notice to the party concerned which has not been done in the present case, and, therefore, the order contained in Annexure-A attached to the counter-affidavit is not in accordance with law.

5. In the present case, I want to lay down the gui