1. These two writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioners pray for the quashing of Annexure 2 to 6, orders passed under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (here in after called 'the Act'). It may be stated that the present proceeding under the Act, which was started by the Sub–divisional Officer, Sitamarhi, being Case No.1 Bhu. Ha of 1973-74, was a second proceeding under the provisions of the Act, after the recent amendments. The earlier proceeding was initiated in the year 1969-70 being case no. 1 of 1969-70.

2. In the earlier proceeding, it was held that the family of the petitioner, namely, the petitioner himself, his wife, sons, daughters and daughter-in-law, together did not hold land in excess of the ceiling as then prescribed, the order having been passed on 30.12.1971. After the amended Act, lowering the ceiling and introducing the concept of family was enacted, the present proceeding has been started. Several objections were taken in that proceeding including the objection regarding the maintainability of the second proceeding. There was also objection in relation to the• classification of land. The other dispute between the parties was whether some of the members of the family were major or minor on the appointed day. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, has held that the second proceeding was entertainable in Jaw. He however, remanded the case for reconsideration of the question of classification as also re–determination of the question of majority or minority of some of the petitioners in the light of the observations made in his judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised two contentions in this court. He con tended firstly that the decision in case no. 1 of 1969-70 was a bar to the initiation of the present proceeding. He next contended that the remand order in so far as the determination of the question of age is concerned was erroneous in law, as it amounted to permitting the State to adduce evidence which it had not adduced earlier. This could not be done.

4. It was first suggested during the course of argument that the earlier decision was res judicata, but later when we pointed out that this point was not available to the petitioners in view of our decision in Rajni Ranjan Sinha & others vs. The State of Bihar, 1977 B.B.C.J. 279, the learned counsel put his case on a different footing. He contended that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurjit Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & other, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1791, the second proceeding was not entertainable in law. He contended that the second proceeding amounted to review of the earlier proceeding and that concluded matter could not be re-opened. In our view, it is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioners. It would be necessary to briefly indicate the facts of Gurjit Singh's case and the actual decision in that case. In the aforesaid case, on the basis of a judgment and decree passed by the civil court to the effect that there was no transfer of land to the first appellant in that case, the Collector under the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, held that there was no surplus land in the ownership and the possession of the first appellant. This order was passed on 28.3.1961. The Act, was amended by Act, 16 of 1962 and section 32 DD was introduced into the Act, with retrospective effect from 30.10.1956. The relevant portion of the section is as follows:–

"32DD. Further tenancies in surplus area and certain judgments etc. to be ignored–Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, for the purpose of determining the surplus area of any person–

(a) XXX XXX XXX

(b) Any judgment, decree or order of a court or other authority, obtained after the commencement of that Act, and having the effect of diminishing the area of such person which could have been declared