S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. In this reference to the Full Bench it is now wholly unnecessary to recount the facts. Suffice it to notice that the controversy herein turns on the language used in Sec. 45B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 which is in the following terms :-

"The State Government or the Collector of the district, who may be authorised in this behalf may, at any time, 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."

It is well to recall that at the very threshold stage of admission, learned counsel for the petitioners in challenging the impugned order under S.45B had contended that in the absence of any new material or new information on the record the case could not be reopened. Basic reliance for this contention was on the Division Bench judgement in Yamuna Rai V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1984 Pat 195. However, the motion Bench expressed a veiled doubt about the correctness of the view in Yamuna Rais case. Noticing the significance of the issue and the frequency with which it arises in cases under the ceiling laws, they observed as under :-

"We, accordingly, refer this case to a larger Bench for considering the correctness of the law laid down in the case of Yamuna Rai and others (supra)."

2. As before the admitting Bench so before us, the learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated his reference to and reliance on Yamuna Rai V/s. State of Bihar. It was submitted that on closer examination the same did not, in any way, divert from the line of earlier precedent within the Court. Reference was made to Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 1982 BBCJ (HC) 362 : AIR 1982 Patna 141, Shri Thakur Ram Jankiji V/s. State of Bihar, 1983 BLJ 33 and Harishchandra Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 1984 Pat LJR 988 : (AIR 1984 Patna 337).

3. Somewhat surprisingly, learned counsel for the respondent State did not pick up the gauntlet of the challenge to the correctness of the view in Yamuna Rais case, (AIR 1984 Patna 195). Even when pointedly asked. He took up the stand that far from assailing its ratio, he relied thereupon. According to the learned counsel, the observations in the said case, read as a whole, were consistent with the earlier stream of cases.

4. In view of the above, it is somewhat plain that the present reference is now rendered infructuous. It is obviously unnecessary and, perhaps, inapt to opine about the correctness of a view regarding which learned counsel for the parties are themselves agreed and with regard to which no challenge has now been raised before us.

5. The case would now go back to an appropriate Bench for a decision on merits.

6. B.P. JHA, J. I agree to the order proposed and recorded by my Brother, Hon ble Mr. Justice L.M. Sharma.

7. LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J. While admitting this writ application, a Division Bench of this Court seriously doubted the correctness of the decision in Yamuna Rai V/s. State of Bihar, 1984 Pat LJR 480 : (AIR 1984 Patna 195) and referred it to Full Bench. In the order of reference, the Bench has observed as follows :-

"One of the points raised on behalf of the petitioners while challenging the impugned orders (Annexures-2 and 3) passed under S.45-B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is that in the absence of any new material or new information on the record, the case could not have been reopened. In support of this contention, he relied on a Bench decision of this Court in Yamuna Rai V/s. State of Bihar, 1984 Pat LJR 480 : (AIR 1984 Patna 195). We find ourselves unable to reconcile with the observations of the Division Bench in the above case. In our opinion, the power conferred upon the Collector under S.45-B of the Act is wider as the lang