IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8807 of 2010 1. GHANSHYAM MEHTA S/O KUSUM LAL MEHTA R/O VILL.- MASURIA, P.S.- SARSI, DISTT.- PURNEA 2. KAMESHWAR MEHTA S/O KUSUM LAL MEHTA R/O VILL.- MASURIA, P.S.- SARSI, DISTT.- PURNEA ---- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COLLECTOR, PURNEA 3. MADHAV JHA S/O LATE SHASHI MOHAN JHA R/O RAMNAGAR, P.S.- KRITYANAND NAGAR, DISTT.- PURNEA 4. HARI MOHAN JHA S/O DEO LAL JHA R/O RAMNAGAR, P.S.- KRITYANAND NAGAR, DISTT.- PURNEA 5. LAKHAN RISHI S/O LATE BINCHU RISHI R/O VILL.- MASURIA, P.S.- SARSI, DISTT.- PURNEA 6. MOST. RANDO DEVI W/O RAMDEO RISHI R/O VILL.- MASURIA, P.S.- SARSI, DISTT.- PURNEA 7. HARI LAL RISHI S/O LATE VEERO RISHI R/O VILL.- MASURIA, P.S.- SARSI, DISTT.- PURNEA 8. BODHA RISHI S/O LATE VEERO RISHI R/O VILL.- MASURIA, P.S.- SARSI, DISTT.- PURNEA 9. NILU DEVI W/O GUNESHWAR RISHIDEO R/O VILL.- MASURIA, P.S.- SARSI, DISTT.- PURNEA ---- RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 23.6.2010 The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 2.1.2009 and the subsequent order passed on their application for restoration of Misc. Ceiling Case No. 4 of 2000 which arises out of an application filed under Section 45B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ceiling Act’). The facts are that the petitioners had filed an application under Section 45B in the year 1990 which was allowed by the Collector, Purnea vide order dated 4.10.1991 contained in annexure-2. Again being aggrieved by the order of the Collector, an appeal numbered as Ceiling Appeal No. 218/92-93 was filed which was disposed of on 10.12.1993 by the Commissioner, Purnea remanding the matter back to the Collector for reconsideration. As a consequence of the remand order, the case came to be registered as 2 Misc. Ceiling Case No. 4 of 2000 which has now been finally dismissed for default. On perusal of the order sheet of Misc. Ceiling Case No. 4 of 2000, this Court finds that the petitioners have been present since 2001 and pursuing the matter. They have only been absent on 26.6.2007, 7.8.2007 and 2.1.2009. This Court notices that on 18.11.2008 the date for the case was fixed on 25.11.2008. The order sheet does not disclose why the matter was not taken up on 25.11.2008 and if it was postponed, the order sheet ought to have the date on which it was to be heard. After dismissal of the case, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they filed restoration application. There is no formal order on the restoration application but counsel informs this Court that it has been dismissed by passing an order on the margin of the application itself. Whatever be the position, this matter with respect to hearing of Section 45B of the Ceiling Act would necessarily mean that the Collector, Purnea should hear the matter on merit once it has been remanded by the Commissioner. Counsel for the State (Ceiling) raises an objection that after the amendment of Section 45B of the Ceiling Act, the State Government would be the competent authority to hear matters covered by Section 45B of the Ceiling Act and the Collector, Purnea could no longer entertain applications under Section 45B of the Ceiling Act. The amendment has been made by the amending Act 8 of 1997 which came into effect on 12.3.1997. Normally an amendment made to a 3 statute would be prospective unless the language of the statute specifically states that it would apply retrospectively. On perusal of Section 45B of the Ceiling Act, the amendment does not indicate that it is retrospective in nature. Thus the objection that the matter should be raised before the State Government is not a valid objection in view of the fact that this matter actually relates to an application filed under Section 45B of the Ceiling Act in the year 1990 and the matter is still continuing as a result of the order passed in the appeal on 10.12.1993. In view of this fact since the matter is pending from a date prior when the amendment was made, the amended Section of 45B of the Ceiling Act requiring that it should be heard by the State has to be rejected. I accordingly direct the Collector, Purnea to pass an orders on merits of the case keeping in view of the fact that the matter is pending since 1990 i.e. for more than 20 years now. It would be proper that the Collector, Purnea should take up this matter as expeditiously as possible considering that 20 years have already passed. The matter should be concluded within a period of six months. Unnecessary time should not be granted to either the petitioners or the other private respondents or for that matter counsel representing the State. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Sanjay/A.F.R. (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)