Sarwar Ali, J.

In these three cases common question of law arise and they are, therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment. In these proceedings under the provisions of the Bihar Land Ref0rms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 were started on 1.10.1970. By order dated 15.4.1971 it was held that the petitioners did not hold land in excess of the then ceiling area. It is to be observed that when the orders were passed Bihar Act, I of 1973 had not been enacted. Consequently, the decision in these cases was on the basis of the relevant provisions of Act, 12 of 1962.

2. After the enactment of Bihar Act, of 1973 as amended fresh proceeding was started in these cases separately, giving rise to Ceiling Case Nos. 8 of 1973-74, 6 of 1973-74 and 5 of 1973-74. The petitioners challenged the validity of these proceedings. Their contention is that since in the earlier proceedings the petitioners were held to possess lands within ceiling area, a fresh proceeding could not be started as the orders passed on the earlier occasion must be deemed to have been passed under the provisions of Act, I of 1973 which came into force retrospectively from 9.9.1970. A fresh proceeding, it was contended under the provisions of Bihar Act, I of 1973 as amended by Bihar Act, IX of 1973, was barred by the principles of res judicata. Reliance was placed in this connection on the decisions in Nalinrianjan Singh & others Vs. State of Bihar which it was pointed out was a case on identical facts.

3. It was contended on behalf of the State that the decision in Naliniranjan Singh's case, although a Bench decision was not a correct decision and it should be reconsidered by a larger Bench. It was further contended that in any event, in view of the section 19 of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment Act, 1976) (Bihar Act, XXII of 1976) the aforesaid Bench decision of this Court was inapplicable and there could not be now any bar to initiation of a proceeding in the circumstances of the present case.

4. It is first necessary to appreciate the real decision and the basis of the decision in Naliniranjan Singh's case. Before proceeding, however, section 13 of Act, I of 1973 and the amendment brought about by Act, XXII of 1976 should be quoted: Section 13 of Act, I of 1973 is as follows :-

"(1) The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Amendment Ordinance, 1972 (Bihar Ordinance no. 64 of 1972 is hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal anything done or any action taken in the exercise of any power conferred by or under the said ordinance shall be deemed to have been done or taken in the exercise of power conferred by this Act, as if this Act, were in force on the day on which such thing was done or action taken.

(3) Nothing in this Act, or the amendments affected thereby shall affect or be deemed to affect anything done or any action taken under the provisions of the said Act:

(Provided that in case where the landholder has already submitted a return in accordance with the notice issued under section 6 or section 8 of the said Act, and has exercised the option under section 9 of the said Act, he shall be given an opportunity to further exercise the option under the said section in view of the provision of this Act, within 15 days from the date of service of notice issued by the Collector for this purpose or with in such extended period as may be allowed by the Collector."

Section 19 of Bihar Act, XXII of 1976 which amends the aforesaid section 13 is as follows :-

"In section 13 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Bihar Act, I of 1973), in sub-section (3), the following words shall be added at the end and shall be deemed always to have been added, namely:-

"In so far as action is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, and all proceedings pending before the comm