Judgment The petitioners pray for quashing of Annexures 8, 9 and 10, the orders of the Sub-divisional Officer, Bhabua the Additional Collector. Rohtas and the Member Board of Revenue respectively passed in a proceeding started under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The aforesaid proceeding was numbered as "Zila Rohtas 681/73-74 No. 38 of 73". 2. It appears that a proceeding being Ceiling Case No. 6 of 1973-74 was started earlier. In this proceeding petitioner no. 1 appeared and made certain claims. One of the claims was that he had two major sons, who are petitioners 2 and 3 to this writ application. The question that was considered in that proceeding was whether Bachan Pd. Singh, his wife and his sons had lands in excess of ceiling area. This was apart from the other questions considered in the order. It was held that the two sons of Bachan Pd. Singh were major and as such Bachan Pd. Singh, his wife and the two major sons together did not hold lands in excess of the ceiling area. It may be stated that the order in this case was passed on 28.8.1975 long after Act, 1 of 1973 are amended by Act, IX of 1973 came into force. In this order the consideration was with reference to the amended law and not according to the law before the amendment. 3. It appears on the basis of certain reports the Sub-divisional Officer, Bhabhua, was of the view that the two sons of Bachan Pd. Singh, were minors, and as such the family of Bachan Pd. Singh held lands in excess of ceiling area. It was on that basis that the new proceeding, as noted above, was started. It has been held by order dated 20.2.1976 (Annexure-8) that the two sons of Bachan Pd. Singh were minors and as such the draft statements as served on Bachan Pd. Singh under section 10 (2) of the Act, was directed to be finally published. As already stated, there was an appeal as also a revision. 4. In this writ application although several points have been taken, the only point that has been canvassed is in relation to petitioners 1 to 4. It is contended that in view of the decision in the earlier proceeding being case no. As already stated, there was an appeal as also a revision. 4. In this writ application although several points have been taken, the only point that has been canvassed is in relation to petitioners 1 to 4. It is contended that in view of the decision in the earlier proceeding being case no. 6 of 1973-74 was not open to the Sub-divisional Officer or the Additional Collector from whom the records were received by the Sub-divisional Officer to start a fresh proceeding, when there was already a determination under the provisions of the amended Act. The contention appears to be correct. The earlier proceeding, as already noticed, was after the amended law came into force. A determination whether right or wrong, had been arrived at the said proceeding, which was to the effect that the two sons of Bachan Pd. Singh were major and that the family did not hold lands in excess of the ceiling area. In this situation it was not open to the Sub-divisional officer or the Additional Collector to start a fresh proceeding about a concluded matter when there was no appeal or revision by the State. In the circumstance therefore the start of the fresh proceeding was without jurisdiction. We must, further clear that this decision is confined to the consideration of the validity of the proceeding with reference to the law on the date on which the fresh proceeding was started. We are not expressing any opinion as to what would be the impact of Act, XXII of 1976. This application is accordingly allowed, the orders contained in Annexure 8, 9 and 10 are quashed in relation to petitioners 1 to 4. There will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.