S.K.Katriar, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.1.2003 (Annexure 4), passed by the Minister for Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, initiating proceeding u/s. 45-B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and has called upon the petitioner to present his case.

2. Land ceiling proceeding were started against the petitioner which had attained finality, whereby in substance three units had been allowed to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Collector of the district re-opened the proceeding under sec. 45-B of the Act which was registered as Land Ceiling Case No. 5/73-74 (State of Bihar V/s. Mahanth Ram Charitra Das), whereby one more unit was allowed to the petitioner, over and above the three unites earlier granted. It was further stated in this order that 30 acres had been declared surplus which had been surrendered by the petitioner which vested in the State of Bihar. This order not having been challenged became final vide Annexure 1. Much after the proceeding u/s. 45-B of the Act concluded, the Collector of the district decided to re-open the matter once against u/s. 45-B and was registered as case No. 5/73- 74/59/92 (State of Bihar V/s. Mahanth Brijnarain Das). After affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the learned Collector of the District of Sheohar disposed of the same by his order dated 30.1.1995 (Annexure 4), whereby he has affirmed his earlier order 15.9.1983 (Annexure 1), and there was no alteration in the existing position. sec. 45-B of the Act has been amended by Act VIII of 1997, whereby Collector of the district has been omitted and the State Government remains the only authority under sec. 45-B empowered to re-open closed land ceiling proceedings under the Act. The Minister of the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms is now the prescribed authority, and has issued the impugned notice dated 31.1.2003 (Annexure 5) u/s. 45-B of the Act whereby he has conveyed his decision to the petitioner to re-open the proceeding under the said provision and has called him upon to explain his position. Hence this writ petition.

3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present proceeding is beyond the scope of Section 45-B of the Act. He relies on the following reported judgments :-

-

(i) Praveen Shankar Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 1987 BLJR 292 (FB).

(ii) Dr. Jagannath Mishra V/s. State of Bihar, 1992 BBCJ 22 (DB).

(iii) Dhruv Narain Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 1997 (2) PLJR 889].

4. Learned government counsel has taken me through his counter affidavit wherein the prescribed authority has taken the stand that it is open to the petitioner to explain his case before the prescribed authority and has the opportunity of persuading him that no case is made out to re-open the proceeding.

5. I have perused the materials pn record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. sec. 45-B of the Act reads as follows :

"45-B. 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 and may, if it thinks fit direct that the case be re-opened and disposed of afresh in accordance with the provision of the Act."

6. The scope of sec. 45-B of the Act had fallen for the consideration of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Praveen Shankar Singh V/s. State of Bihar, (supra). Paragraph 17 of the judgment is relevant in the present context and is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference :-

-

"17. Now the question as to whether the authority can decide to reopen the proceeding on a re-consideration of the materials which had earlier been considered. In my view, it is not permissible to do so and this interpretation