IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12819 of 2011 Rajendra Narayan Singh S/O Late Shashi Shekhar Prasad Sinha R/O Vill.- Thatia, P.S.- Rosera, Distt.- Samastipur At Present 186, Patliputra Colony, Distt.- Patna …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Additional Member , Board Of Revenue, Bihar, Patna 3. The Commissioner, Darbhanga 4. The Collector, Samastipur 5. The Collector, Begusarai 6. The Circle Officer, Rosera, Distt.- Samastipur 7. The Circle Officer, Khudavandpur, Distt.- Begusarai ………..Respondents For the Petitioner : M/s K.N.Choubey, Sr. Advocate & Vivek Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kinkar Kumar, AC to GP 25 4 18.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State despite indulgence granted. The nature of order which is to be passed in present case requires brief discussion of fact as under: A ceiling proceeding bearing Ceiling Case No. 70 of 1973-74 was initiated against the father of the petitioner and the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 2 12081/2002, namely, Birendra Narayan Singh was concluded on 26.6.1976 and final publication under Section 11 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was published on 27.7.1976 granting additional unit to this petitioner who was earlier considered as minor but later on found to be major. It appears that by the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 3 the authorities have re-opened the ceiling proceeding for its re- examination of the point of grant of unit to the petitioner who was earlier found to be minor. The petitioner pursued its remedy before the ceiling authorities. However, his brother, namely, Surendra Narayan Singh preferred C.W.J. C. No.10321 of 2002, which was allowed on 13.7.2010 and the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 2, 4 and 5 which are Annexures 1, 2 and 3 to the present writ application as well as the consequential orders were quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been no initiation of a proceeding under 3 Section 45 B of the Act in accordance with law inasmuch as the power to re-open the ceiling proceeding was with the State Government as per the provisions as contained in the aforesaid provision of the Act. Learned counsel further submits that the aforesaid issue has been considered in detailed in the aforesaid order passed by a Single Bench of this court which has been appended as Annexure 6 to this writ application. It has been held in the aforesaid case that there had been no initiation in accordance with law under Section 45 B of the Act. It has also been recorded in the aforesaid order that the contention of the learned counsel on behalf of the State to the effect that the petitioner would not be entitled for a separate unit in view of the amended provision of Section 2 (g) of the Act was also not tenable. Though the definition of the land holder as provided under Section 2 (g) of the Act has been made retrospective after amendment but that would only be applicable with retrospective effect in the cases which were pending at the relevant time. Thus, in view of the fact that the 4 concerned ceiling case has finally been concluded in the year 1976 itself and the final publication has been published in 1977 itself, that would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner. The relevant passage of the aforesaid order is quoted as under: “ 9. This procedure involves three steps and enjoins a duty on the State Government to examine any record which by necessary implication means application of the judicial mind. It may be done in the following manner: the State Government may call for and examine the records and if it finds that there is illegality in the proceeding, may pass an order for reopening of the ceiling proceeding, the State Government may reopen the matter `if it thinks fit‟. This expression indicates that the case may be reopened for adequate reasons and it cannot be reopened for examining the correctness of previous orders or because the State Government does not agree with the judicial adjudication made in the case. It is obvious that no order has been passed for reopening the ceiling proceeding relating to the present case as envisaged under Section 45B of the Act. The Revenue and Land Reforms Department cannot reopen a proceeding or test the adjudication of final 5 publication made in this case on the basis of a noting that the units have wrongly been granted, that too, when the publication was made in the year 1976 and notices were allegedly issued to the petitioners in the year 2001. Such orders cannot be upheld by this Court, more so after a gap of more than 20 years. 10. It would also be relevant to go into the reasons for passing the impugned orders in view of the stand taken on behalf of the State. It has been contended that the petitioners would not be entitled to a separate unit in view of the amendment of Section 2 (g) of the Act. The proceeding culminated with the publication of the final statement under Section 11 (1) of the Act on 27.07.1976. The amendment of the expression “land holder‟ under Section 2 (g) of the Act has been made retrospective and, therefore, it has been argued that the petitioners would not be entitled to a separate unit. It is quite obvious that on the date on which the amendment came into force, it would apply retrospectively to all proceedings pending at that time. However, since the present proceeding had already stood concluded, nothing more could have been done and the contention of the State that the reasons for passing the impugned orders is 6 justified is unacceptable to this Court. There has to be a limitation for restarting/reopening/raising objection to a transaction or an order passed by the judicial or quasi judicial bodies. The State, or for that matter, any other authority, cannot be permitted to perpetuate threat of uncertainty and consequential harassment by acting in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner.” Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that though the factum of quashing of the impugned orders by this Court in view of the decision as aforesaid has been brought to the knowledge of the revisional authority, however, in place of complying that order it has come to the conclusion that the such order can only be obtained by the petitioner by preferring a writ application and if such order is not obtained within 30 days then the Commissioner’s order dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, which was under challenge in revision, would remain operative. Learned counsel submits that the order suffers from vice of the illegality inasmuch as the revisional court could not have ignored the order passed by this 7 Court quashing the self same orders which were also the subject matter of the concerned revision. Learned counsel for the State also accepts that in the case filed by the petitioner the impugned orders has already been quashed by the order dated 13th July, 2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10321/2002 with C.W.J.C. No. 12081 of 2002. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State have jointly submitted that as per information received by them from the Information Centre of this Court that no appeal has been preferred against the order dated 13th July 2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. C.W.J.C. No. 10321/2002 with C.W.J.C. No. 12081 of 2002. I find force in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. The orders as contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 3 have already been set aside by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 13.7.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. C.W.J.C. No. 10321/2002 with C.W.J.C. No. 12081 of 2002, which was filed by the brother of the petitioner. In above view of the matter, this writ application 8 is also disposed of in terms of the C.W.J.C. No. C.W.J.C. No. 10321/2002 with C.W.J.C. No. 12081 of 2002 vide order dated 13.7.2010, whereby the impugned orders have already been set aside and the consequential orders passed by the appellate authority dated 30.7.2007 and the revisional order dated 2.6.2011 as contained in Annexure 7 series are also set aside. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)