Choudhary Sia Sharan Sinha, J.

The petitioners, six in number, five of them being sons of Shri Shashi Kant Kumar and the sixth his widow, have filed this writ application for quashing Annexure-1 dated 18.10.82, the order of the Collector of the district re-opening the case, earlier disposed of, under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area And Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', as also the notice (Annexure-4) issued to the petitioners asking them to come prepared for re-hearing of the matter.

2. In substance, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order of the re-opening, as contained in Annexure-1, on the ground that there was no fresh material before the Collector of the district to do so. It was also contended that the State Government did not move the higher authorities against the earlier or-ners disposing of the Land Ceiling case in favour of the petitioners on two earlier occasions, at first, on 30.11.1970 by the Additional Collector (vide annexure-2) and subsequently on 9.10.1975 by the Collector of the district (vide Annexure-3). There is no counter affidavit on behalf of the State of Bihar though the learned counsel for the State argued the matter with some vehemence.

3. The point involved is a short one, namely, whether the Collector of the district acted legally in re-opening the case by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1.

Section 45 B of the Act, added by Act, 22 of 1976, reads as follows :

"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 provisions of the Act

Sections 30 to 47 of the Act, all appear in Chapter XII of the Act, under the heading, "Miscellaneous", While the earlier provisions of the Act, provide for disposal of ceiling cases, for disposal of appeals and revisions arising therefrom, section 45 A of the Act, occurring earlier to section 45 B of the Act, authorises the State Government to give general or special directions to the Collector of the district to carry into effect the provisions of this Act. Then follows section 45 B of the Act, containing the provisions of re-opening extracted above. Though the powers of reopening, as the provisions of section 45 B of the Act, indicate, are somewhat wide, no hard and fast rule can possibly be laid down giving an exhaustive list of cases where alone the re-opening can be ordered. Indeed, this will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case as indicated in the case of Nawal Kishore Singh and Others v. State of Bihar and others.

4. This takes us to the facts of the instant case, more or less, uncontroverted. Ceiling Case No.1 of 1970 was started against Shashi Kant Kumar, father of the petitioner nos.1 to 5. He was noticed. He submitted a return. There was a verification report. The matter was considered by the Additional Collector in Annexure-2. He came to the finding that there is no scope for the operation of section 5 of the Act, against the landholder. He, therefore, ordered the proceeding to be closed. Subsequently, on the 7th of December 1973,a notice in form L.C. 3 of the Act, was sent to the said Shashi Kant Kumar again for submitting return presumably under sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Act. The said landholder submitted his return on 11.2.1974. As usual, there was a second verification report. The matter was heard by the Collector of the district. He considered the matter laying emphasis on two points, namely, transfer of 18.41 acres of land by the landholder and his family members after 8.9.1970 and the question of majority of Chandranath Kumar. The Collector of the district came to a finding that though the sale deed transferring 18.41 acres of land was executed without permission of the Collector, there