The State Government or Collector, while exercising powers under Section 45-B of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, must comply with the requirements of the section, including giving notice to the landholder, hearing him, and recording reasons for reopening the proceeding.

M.Y.Eqbal, J.

1. In this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 23.3.1978 passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Palamau, in purported exercise of powers under Sec. 45-B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, and also the order dated 30.12.86 passed by the Addl. Collector, Palamau, in Land Ceiling Case No. 64/1973-74 and the subsequent orders dated 2.11.1987 and 21.6.1987 passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Palamau, and the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna.

2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the petitioners are as follows:

In the year 1973, a ceiling proceeding was initiated against the petitioners in Land Ceiling Case No. 64(5)/73-74 and notices were issued by the Land Reforms Dy. Collector, Palamau, in response whereof, the petitioners appeared and filed returns. The Deputy Collector, Incharge Land Reforms, by his order dated 22.3.75 declared that the petitioner No. 2 Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Singh, is major and accordingly two units were allowed to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. A copy of the order dated 22.3.75 is Annexure-1 to this writ application. The petitioners further case is that after about 5 years, the respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner, without notice to the petitioners, by an order dated 23.3.1978 under Sec. 45 (B) of the Act, reopened the Land Ceiling Case No. 64/5/73-74 and forwarded the case to the Addl. Collector, Land Ceiling, Palamau, for disposal. A copy of the order dated 23.3.78 passed under Sec. 45-B of the Act is annexure-2 to this writ application. It is stated that the respondent No. 4, the Addl. Collector, Palamau after hearing the parties, by his order dated 30.12.86 held that the petitioner No. 2 was minor on the appointed dated and as such he is not entitled to any unit. The petitioners after that moved the Dy. Commissioner in appeal who by order 2.11.1987 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Addl. Collector. The petitioners then moved the Member, Board of Revenue, Patna, in revision which was numbered as Case No. 213/87 and the Learned Member, Board of Revenue, by order dated 21.6.1989 partly allowed the revision and directed the authorities to make certain modifications with regard to exemption claimed by petitioner No. 1. The stand of petitioner No. 1 is that the petitioners actually held 25.06 acres of Class IV Land as 41.40 1/2 of class VI land in Bishrampur Anchal and they also held 9.57 1/2 of class IV land in village Khorta in Garhwa Anchal. According to the petitioner, they are entitled to 96 acres of class VI land and as such the petitioners did not hold land beyond the ceiling.

3. Mr. S. Srivastava, earned Counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the impugned orders passed by the different authorities as being illegal and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. Earned Counsel firstly submitted that from the original order passed by the Dy. Commissioner in purported exercise of powers under Sec. 45-B of the said Act is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The earned Counsel submitted that the Collectors has no jurisdiction or authority to re-open the proceedings without giving notice to the land holders and without hearing them. Earned Counsel submitted that from the impugned order of the Dy. Commissioner passed while reopening the proceeding, it will appear that there is complete non-application of mind inasmuch as it has not been disclosed what are the reasons and under what circumstances, he was satisfied that some irregularities were committed. Earned Counsel further submitted that after re-opening of the proceeding under Section 45-B of the Act, the Collector has no power or jurisdiction to transfer the case to another authority for disposal. The earned Counsel submitted that there cannot be a suo moto reopening of the proceeding in purported exercise of jurisdiction under Sec. 45-B of the Act. In this connection, the earned Counsel put relian