JUDGMENT
L.M. Sharma and Birendra Prasad Sinha, JJ.
1. This writ application arises out of a proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Laud) Act, 1961.
2. A ceiling case being CC. No. 38/73-74 was started against the petitioner No. 1 and final orders were passed declaring 32.70 acres as surplus land and holding that he could retain 90 acres, The petitioners were allowed 3 units.
3. In 1975, the case was reopened under Section 45-B without notice to the petitioner by the order dated 28/12/75 as contained in Annexure 5 (page 47) and it was held that the petitioners would be fitting only 2 units. Accordingly the Gazette publication Annexure 1 has been issued. The petitioners have by this application prayed for quashing the order and the Annexure-1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of earlier decision, the matter should have been left undisturbed as no admissible reason for re-opening the proceeding is mentioned in Annexure-5. Further by the impugned orders, Bhuinhari lands (sic) exempted from the operation of the Section 2(k) have been illegally taken into consideration (pasted) It is also asserted that some sikmi lands belonging to strangers have been included in the petitioners’ land illegally allotted to them after declining their raiyati lands as surplus.
4. The scope of Section 45-B has been discussed by this Court in several decisions and a perusal of the impugned order indicates that the authority has not appreciated the law. Further no reasons have been given for allowing only 2 units instead of 3 units. All this has happened because no notice was given to the petitioners, allowing them to place their case. We, therefore, quash the decision scoping the proceeding and the resultant Annexure-1, but make it clear that if the authorities are of the view that it is a fit case for scoping the proceeding, they may do so after issuing notice and after hearing the parties and then further if the circumstances permitting re-opening be found to be present. The other points taken by the petitioners may be urged by them in that case. The writ application is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.