Judgment U.N.Sinha, J. 1. This application has been Hi ed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that an order, dated the 22nd March, 1963, incorporated in Annexure F of the application, passed by opposite party No. 2, the Revenue Minister, Government of Bihar, Patna, may be quashed by a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari or by am other appropriate writ. The substance of the facts stated in the application is as follows. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of a house in Mohhalla Bakerganj, in the town of Laherisarai, in the district of Darbhanga, bearing holding No. 92, plot No. 28816, measuring about 1 katha, 13 dhurs and 87 dhurkis. A notification had been published in the Bihar Gazette for acquisition of some lands, in cluding the petitioners land, for the purpose of extending Sinba Homeo Medical College and Hos pital, Laherisarai. In the due course the petitioner filed an objection under Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector of Darbhanga. By order dated the 5th October, 1961, the Collec tor of Darbhanga rejected the petitioners objection and thereupon, the petitioner filed an application under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by Bihar Act 11 of 1961, before the appropriate Government. It is stated that the then Revenue Minister, Government of Bihar, passed his order on the petitioners application, which is incorporated in Annexure D of the application dated the 2nd March, 1962. It is stated, further, that in pursuance of the directions given by the then Revenue Minister, the Collector dropped the land acquisition proceeding, as is evidenced by Annexure E - It is then stated that in April, 1962, opposite party No. 5, the Secretary of the Sinha Horaeo Medical College and Hospital, revived the land acquisition proceeding by filing a petition before the Revenue Minister, Government of Bihar. It is then stated that by order dated the 22nd March, 1963. the then Revenue Minister reopened the matter and ordered that the land and house of the petitioner will be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. It is then stated that by order dated the 22nd March, 1963. the then Revenue Minister reopened the matter and ordered that the land and house of the petitioner will be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. This is the impugned order, incorporated in Annexure F. It Is mentioned in the application that the order dated the 22nd March, 1963 was illegal and without jurisdiction, as the order passed earlier and incorporated in Annexure D, dated the 2nd March, 1962, was final. It is further stated that the Revenue Minister, Government of Bihar, had no power to review an earlier decision, and, therefore, the order dated the 22nd March, 1963, should be quashed. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 and the substance of it is that the land, which was the subject-matter of land acquisition proceeding, was partly vacant and partly covered with dilapidated houses, and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in the order dated the 22nd March, 1963, having been passed for acquisition. The existence of any house, as alleged by the petitioner, has been denied. A reply to the counter-affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner, stating that in fact, a house stands on the land proposed to be acquired and its holding numbers are 92 and 92A in the record of the Darbhanga Municipality. Some other facts have also been in this reply. 3. The main argument advanced by Sri Prem Lall, appearing for the petitioner, is based on Sec. 5A incorporated in the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 by Land Acquisition (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1960, which is Bihar Act No. 11 of 1961. The original section of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No. 1 of 1894), reads thus : "5A. (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under Sec. 4, Sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a Company may, within thirty days after the issue of the, notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. (2) Every objection under Sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, submit the case for the decision of the appropriate Government, together with the record of the proceedings held by him and a report containing his recommendations on the objections. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final. (3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act". The amendment incorporated by Bihar Act 11 of 1961 reads as follows: "Amendment of sec. 5A of Act 1 of 1894.--In Sec. 5A of the said Act: (1) in Sub-section (1), for the words "within thirty days after the issue of the notice the follow ing words shall be substituted, namely:- - "within thirty days after the publication of the notification referred to in the said Sub-section at some conspicuous place in the village in which the land is situated or of the service of the copy thereof on him, whichever is later," : and -- II. for Sub-section (2), the fellowing Sub-section shall be substituted, namely- "(2) (i) Every objection under Sub-section (1) shall be made in writing to the Collector who shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and making such further enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, decide the objection: Provided that the appropriate Government may, either of its own motion or on the application of any person interested in the land, call for the record of the proceedings held by the Collector and pass such order as it may think fit. (ii) The order of the appropriate Government and subject to such order, the decision of the Collector, tinder Clause (1) shall be final." It is contended by the learned counsel that after the petitioner had filed his application to the Government, under Sec. 5A(2)(1), which is Annexure C of the application, and after its disposal by the appropriate Government, whose order was incorporated in Annexure D of the application, dated the 2nd March, 1962, the order of the appropriate Government in this matter had become final, and, therefore, the same matter could not have been re-agitated and leviewed in 1963 by any further order incorporated in Annexure F of the application. According to the learned counsel, Sec. 5A introduced by Bihar Act 11 of 1981 enacts that when the appropriate Government chooses to pass an order, after the Collector has dealt with the matter, the order of the appropriate Government must be taken to be conclusive once tor all and the order cannot be reviewed, as there is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act for any review of an order which has been declared to be final by Sec. 5A. The learned Standing Counse has argued on the other hand, that the order incorporated in Annexure F was really not a review of the earlier order of the Government, incorporated in Annexure D, but that it was a fresh order for continuing the original land acquisition case, which was, for some reason or the other, in abeyance upto that time. According to the learned standing counsel, the order incorporated in Annexure D did not indicate that the original land acquisition case had been dropped, and, therefore, no illegality had been committed by reviving the matter in 1963, by the order incorporated in Annexure F. In my opinion, however, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of substance, and it is difficult to hold that the order incorporated in Annexure F did not amount to a contrary order, having been passed on review or re-consideration. It is actually mentioned in Annexure F that the matter of acquisition of land for Sinha Homeo Medical College and Hospital in Laherisarai had again been inquired into by the Government, and after fresh consideration, the Government had come to the decision which was incorporated in Annexure F. There is no doubt whatsoever that the order incorporated in Annexure F amounted to reviving the land acquisition proceeding against the property of the petitioner, mentioned earlier, which acquisition had not been approved earlier in the order incorporated in Annexure D. Whether by the order incorporated in Annexure D the whole land acquisition proceeding has been dropped or not, need not be decided in this case, although it does appear from Annexure E, that the Collector of Darbhanga had himself understood that the land acquisition proceeding had been dropped. But so far as the properly of the present petitioner is concerned, there is no doubt that the order of the appropriate Government, incorporated in Annexure D, was to the effect that the acquisition proceeding against that property should not proceed, whereas the present order incorporated in Annexure F states that further steps for acquisition of land should be taken, including the property of the petitioner. In my opinion, the first order of the appropriate Government, incorporated in Annexure D, became final by virtue of Sec. 5A, quoted above, and the appropriate Government had not thereafter any jurisdiction to review or re-consider the matter to come to a contrary conclusion, with respect to the property of the petitioner. It is not possible to uphold the contention of the learned standing counsel that the order incorporated in Annexure F did not interfere with the order incorporated in Annexure D, and that by the order incorporated in Annexure F, the land acquisition proceeding had merely been revived, which was in abeyance after the order incorporated in Annexure D had been passed. There is no indication in the Land Acquisition, Act, that the order declared to be final by Sec. 5A can be reviewed or reconsidered, and as a matter of fact, when sec. 5A states that certain order shall become final at a particular stage it must be taken that the authority whose order had become final could not thereafter re-open the matter and pass a contrary order. 5A states that certain order shall become final at a particular stage it must be taken that the authority whose order had become final could not thereafter re-open the matter and pass a contrary order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a number of decisions, which are, the ease of Ramnath Prasad V/s. S. T. A. Authority, AIR 1957 Pat 117 the case of Rameshwar V/s. State of Bihar, AJR I960 Pat 6 the case of Bhola Prasad V/s. U. A. Goswami, AIR 1963 Pat 437 and the case of Debi Prasad V/s. Khelawan, AIR 1957 All 67 . I do not think it is necessary to deal with these decisions in any detail, because the wordings of Section 5A are clear and categorical, and no other interpretation is possible except that the order declared to be final must be final and conclusive for all purposes, so far as the authority which had passed that order is concerned. 4. For the reasons given above, the application must succeed; but this judgment may not be taken to have decided the rights of any of the other parties whose lands were the subject-matter of the land acquisition proceeding in question except that of the present petitioner. The order incorporated in Annexure F of this application is, therefore, quashed, with respect to the petitioners property, by a writ of certiorari and a writ of mandamus shall issue prohibiting the opposite party from giving effect to the order incorporated in Annexure F, so far as the property of the present petitioner is concerned. The application is, therefore, allowed in the terms mentioned above. Under the circumstances, however, there will be no order for costs of this Court. S.N.P.Singh, J. 5 J agree.