The judgment establishes the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and the jurisdictional limits of authorities in land allotment cases under the Bihar Land Reforms Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 11.11.1995 passed by the Collector, Purnea, by which he has directed that the temple should be allotted one unit equivalent to 18.23 acres and the remaining 27.63 acres of land was directed to be acquired setting aside the notification No. 2889 dated 24.4.1991, by which the temple was allotted two units. The petitioners also seek quashing of the Gazette Notification No. 2999 dated 11.11.1995 (Annexure-2) issued by the Collector, Purnea under Section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 and further seek consequential direction upon the respondents to restore two units of land as allotted to the petitioners by order dated 18.3.1991 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Purnea.

3. The facts of the case are not in dispute that by a registered deed of endowment executed in 1933, one Rama Nand Sinha established private trust and installed two deities, namely, Maa Kali Ji and Sri Kuldevta Ji respectively by giving equal half share of the properties including lands dedicated to the deities by way of the said endowment and subsequently in the year 1938, the mother of Late Rama Nand Sinha, namely, Late Rani Kalawati Devi also dedicated the properties of her share to the said deities installed vide private trusts in two separate temples for their separate maintenance and rites and rituals. The said deities are petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition. Petitioner No.3 is the shebait of both the deities being successor-in-interest of Late Rama Nand Sinha.

4. A ceiling case, being Ceiling Case No. 113 of 1973-74, was initiated against the petitioners who claimed two units. By order dated 18.3.1991, which was passed upon remand by the Appellate Authority, the D.C.L.R. allowed the case of the petitioner holding that the two deities, namely, Sri Mata Kali Ji and Kuldevta Ji have separate existence and Puja Path maintenance and other rituals are also separate and allotted one separate unit each to the deities, namely, two units in all and after allowing the land opted by the petitioners declared 19.5 1/2 acres of land of the petitioner as surplus land. The draft of the final notification under Section 15(1) of the Act was published by Gazette Notification No.2889 dated 29.4.1991. No appeal or revision was filed by the State-respondents against the said order which acquired finality.

5. Thereafter, in the year 1995, the impugned order dated 11.11.1995 was passed by the Collector, by which he held that by the Bihar Ordinance No. 20 of 1995, Section 29(2)(a)(ii) has been deleted and will be deemed to have been deleted with effect from 9.9.1970 itself and thus after the said Ordinance, there was no question of grant of any exemption to the deities and accordingly he directed that the temple in question is entitled for one unit equivalent to 18.23 acres and after giving the same to it, the remaining land, i.e., 27.63 acres was directed to be acquired. The draft publication under Section 15 of the Act was published in the District Gazette as notification No.2999 dated 11.11.1995. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come up before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners raises several pleas in support of his stand. At the outset, it is submitted by him that no notice was issued by the Collector before passing the impugned order dated 11.11.1995 and thus the same is required to be quashed on this ground alone. The said fact has not been denied by the State by filing any counter affidavit in the matter.

7. The second leg of submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that under the very Ordinance, 1995, which came into force with effect from 8.9.1995, the power of the Collector under Sections 37 and 45B of the Act was taken away.

8. It is urged that under Section 45B of the Act, earlier the Collector may, at any ti