With effect from 9th April, 1981, respondent authorities were required to re-determine and to decide the proceeding afresh in accordance with the changes brought about in the law.

N. Pandey, J.

1. The first writ petition has been filed on behalf of Sri hanuman Sugar and Industries Limited, whereas other petitions are preferred by different transferees from the original land holders with respect to some of the lands involved in land ceiling case No.3 of 1983-84.

2. All the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order passed by the Additional Collector, Ceiling motihari (East Champaran), dated 15th january, 1983, under Sec.10 (2) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus land) Act, (in short Act) and the order on appeal by the District Collector, dated 17th June, 1985 as also the order of the Additional Member, Board of revenue, dated 6th July, 1985. A prayer has also been made to quash the orders of the Additional Collector, passed under Sec.5 (1) (iii)and Sec.29 of the Act since neither proper enquiry was carried out nor petitioners were allowed to avail the statutory right of appeal against such orders, because by virtue of amendment of different provisions of the Act by the bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus land) (Amendment) Act, 1982 (Bihar act 55 of 1982) (in short amending act), particularly Sections 32-A and 32b, their appeals had abated as per the order of the District Collector, dated 2nd March, 1982.

3. Facts giving rise to these cases are undisputedly, in a narrow compass. The petitioner Sri Hanuman Sugar and industries Limited is the land holder of the total lands measuring 1467 acres and 25 decimals of different category. The proceeding in question was started some time in the year 1973-74 and returns were filed by the Land holder before the authorities on 13th March, 1974. The purported verification under the provisions of Sec.8 of the Act was camied out. Unfortunately, such a verification was without notice to the parties. Therefore, this Court upon appreciating the grievance of the land holder, quashed the recommendation of the Additional Collector as also the consequential orders by the order dated 13th September, 1976 in CWJC No.1312 of 1985 with a direction to the authorities for fresh verification in presence of the petitioners as also after giving them reasonable opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence in support of their claim for exemption etc. as required under Sec.9 of the Act.

4. It appears from the counter affidavit of the respondents that after verification in terms of the order of the high Court, the Additional Collector also conducted inquiry under Sec.5 (1) (iii) of the Act and declared different sale deeds executed by the original landholder as illegal and farzi, copies of such orders are Annexure A series to the counter-affidavit of the first case. Undisputedly, against the orders passed under Sec.5 (1) (iii) of the act, the original land holders and different transferees filed appeals under section 30 of the Act before the District collector, Motihari. But meanwhile the amending Act was enacted and enforced by publication in the Bihar gazette on the 30th April, 1982. This amending Act like the earlier ordinance was to come into force retrospectively with effect from 9th April, 1981. It would reveal that apart from many significant changes in the original structure of the Act, it inter alia inserted sections 32-A and 32-B in the present act.

5. By virtue of the amendment in sections 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and likewise at various stages, wide ranging substantive and structural changes were brought in the ceiling law. In order to give effect to the changes, it was, therefore, laid down in unmistakable terms by virtue of Sections 32-A and 32-B that surplus area would be determined from the date of the enforcement of the amending Act. Therefore, by virtue of the provisions of Sec.32-A of the act, the Collector by order dated 2nd march, 1982, held that all appeals pending on 9th April, 1981, stand abated and accordingly, he sent back the records to the original Court for a fresh