The insertion of Secs. 32-A and 32-B in the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1982, mandated a fresh determination of the surplus area of land in a ceiling proceeding from the date of enforcement of the Amending Act, and such determination had to be made in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 10 of the Amended Act.

N.Pandey, J.

1. This writ application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of celling case No. 24 of 1979-80/ Tr. No. 86 of 1984-85 as also die order dated 26.4.1991, whereby, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, sent the matter for final publication in the official gazette of the District for acquisition of 126, 73 Acres of land as surplus.

2. For proper adjudication of the questions, involved in the present writ application, it would be appropriate to have a brief survey of certain facts. It appears in the years 1979 a land ceiling case was registered as L.C. Case No. 24 of 1979-80 against the petitioner on receipt of an information, submitted by the Anchal Adhikari, Katihar, the petitioner land holder submitted his return and approached for dropping the proceeding on the ground that he had no excess or surplus land for acquisition.

3. The additional collector (ceiling) published a draft statement under Section 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter %o be referred as the Ceiling Act), granting two units to the petitioners..

4. The land holder being aggrieved by the draft statement, filed objection under Sec. 10(3) of the Ceiling Act, claiming four units on the ground that his sons, namely, Prakash Kumar Jha and Prabhat Kumar Jha, were majors on 9.9.1970, Besides the aforesaid, it was also claimed that major portion of the lands were within the jurisdiction of Katihar Municipality, therefore the provisions of Ceiling Act would not be applicable with respect to such lands.

5. The Anchal Adhikari then submitted his verification report, accepting the case of the petitioner that except the land of two villages, namely, Para and Kehuniya, other lands are lying within the jurisdiction of Katihar Municipality.

6. The Additional Collector, Katihar, by his order dated 15.7.1982 dropped the proceeding and finally determined that out of total 120.30 Acres of land, the Circle Officer has reported that 94.90 Acres of land fell within the Municipal Area and remaining 35.40 Acres of land will come under the Ceiling Act. It was further held that the petitioner and his mother were entitled for two units of Class IV land and, therefore, there was no excess or surplus land for acquisition. Having so held, the Additional Collector finally dropped the proceeding by his order dated 15.7.1982.

7. Near about four years later, the succeeding Additional Collector reopened the proceeding while exercising his power under Sec. 45-B of the Ceiling Act. According to him, the finding of the then Additional Collector that major portion of the land is within the municipal area, was wrong.

8. The petitioner questioned the validity and jurisdiction of the Additional Collector for reopening the proceeding before this Court in CWJC No. 3507 of 1987. The writ application was finally heard and by judgment dated 11th July, 1990, the order of the Additional Collector was quashed on the ground that the then Additional Collector had arrived at a definite conclusive finding that out of the total land, held by the petitioner, 84.90 Acres of land fell within the Municipal Area. It was further held that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to reopen the proceeding under Sec. 45-B of the Celling Act for reconsideration of the same materials, which had earlier been considered by his predecessor. There was neither any material, which was omitted from consideration, nor there was any fresh material, relevant on the question, which it considered, could lead to a different conclusion.

9. But after sometime under the orders of the Collector of the District as per the provisions of Sec. 32-B of the Act, the petitioners were directed to file objection, if any, with respect to the draft statement, published under Section 10(2) of the Act. Ultimately, on 23.1.1991 the Additional Collector directed that 27.50 Acres of Class-III land be allotted in favour of the petitioner and rest 126.73 A