The deletion of a provision of law that provides a remedy does not necessarily obliterate the right to pursue that remedy if the application for such remedy was pending before the competent authority prior to the deletion.

S.K.Homchaudhuri, J.

1. In these two petitions, similar facts and identical law points are involved and the petitions are disposed of on merit at the stage of admission by this common order.

2. In both petitions, the petitioners have filed an application 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) before the Collector for redressal of their grievances against the orders passed in the proceedings under the Act. The application filed under Sec. 45B of the Act by the petitioners in C.W.J.C No. 11286 of 1995 has been registered as Misc. Ceiling Case No. 287 of 1992. The Collector, by the impugned order dated 1.11.1995, dropped the proceeding of the said case holding that of the power of the Collector having been deleted by Bihar Ordinance No. 20 of 1995, which came into effect with effect from 8.9.1995, the Collector ceased to have jurisdiction to entertain an application under Sec. 45B of the Act. Similarly, the application filed under Sec. 45B of the Act by the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 10978 of 1995 has been registered as Misc. Ceiling Case No. 142 of 1992, the Collector on identical ground that in view of the provision of Ordinance No. 20 of 1995, the Collector ceased to have Jurisdiction to entertain such application, dropped the proceeding by the impugned order dated 27.10.1995.

3. Sec. 45B of the Act, prior to coming into force of Bihar Ordinance into No. 20 of 1995, reads as follows:

The State Government to call for and examine records:-

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 any time, if it thinks fit, direct that the case be reopened and disposed of afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

4 By Ordinance No. 20 of 1995, the power of he Collector under Sec. 45B of the Act was deleted. By the same Ordinance, Sec. 37 of the Act was also deleted. But the deletions in respect of provisions of Sec. 45B as well as provision of Sec. 37 of the Act were made prospectively and not restospectively. The question arises whether in view of the deletion of the authority of the Collector to entertain an application under Sec. 45B of the Act by Ordinance No. 20 of 1995, the Collector ceased to have any jurisdiction to entertain an application under Sec. 45B of the Act, which was pending before him prior to coming into force of Ordinance No. 20 of 1995.

5. Similar question aroae for consideration in the case of Bijendra Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar reported in 1996 (1) PLJR Page 256, as to whether in view of deletion of Sec. 37 of the Act by Sec. 8 of the Bihar Ordinance No. 20 of 1995, the right of he petitioner of that case under Sec. 37 of the Act, which was pending before the Collector, stood obliterated. Plating reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sumangali Kumari V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1978 Bihar Law Judgment Pages 746, in Bijendra Prasad Yadav (supra), I hold that the right of the petitioner of that case under Sec. 37 of the Act, which was pending before the Collector prior to coming into force of Bihar Ordinance No. 20 of 1995, was not obliterated and, accordingly, I allowed the petition setting aside die order passed by the Collector dropping the proceeding and directed the Collector to dispose of the case in accordance with law.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the power of the Collector under Sec. 45B of the Act having been deleted prospectively by Ordinance No. 20 of 1995, the petitioners right to purpose his remedy before the Collector in the application under Sec. 45B of the Act, which was pending before the Collector prior to doming into force of Ordinance No. 20 of 1995, has not been obliterated. As such, the Collector acted arbitrarily and illegally in dropping the proc