Jugment N. P. Singh, J. The petitioner has questioned the validity of the order passed, by the Revenue Officer in purported exercise of the power conferred on him by the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Bhoodan Act'). By the impugned order the donation of the lands in question by Raj Darbhanga has been confirmed in favour of respondent Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee. 2. The disputed lands had been sold in execution of a decree passed in a Rent suit instituted by Raj Darbhanga against the petitioner and was purchased by Raj Darbhanga in the year 1940. Raj Darbhanga came in possession of the lands. In the year 1954 Raj Darbhanga donated the lands in question to Acharya Vinoba Bhave through Danpatra. Petition for confirmation of Danapatra was filed on behalf of the Bhoodan Yagna Committee on 4.11.1963. Notice was issued to the petitioner. On 28.12.1963 the petitioner appeared and prayed for time to file objection. No objection, however, was filed. On 8.1.1965 the Revenue Officer confirmed the Bhoodan Danpatras under section 11 (5) of the Bhoodan Act. 3. During the pendency of the case for confirmation of the Danpatra, proceeding under the Kosi Area (Restoration of Lands to Raiyats) Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Land Restoration Act') was initiated in respect of the same lands. The Land Restoration Officer issued notice to Raj Darbhanga Ultimately by orders dated 26.3.1964 the lands which had been sold in execution of the aforesaid rent decree and later donated to the Bhoodan Yagna Committee were directed to be restored to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Land Restoration Act. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the-order of confirmation aforesaid filed an appear before the Collector which was dismissed by the Additional Collector on 26.11.1979. 5. On behalf of the petitioner it was urged that once there is an order for restoration of possession of the lands in question in favour of the petitioner, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Restoration Act, any confirmation of the Danpatras under the Bhoodan Act, shall be of no effect and shall not extinguish the title acquired by the petitioner on basis of the order for restoration of possession. 6. 6. The Land Restoration Act, which was enacted in the year 1951," to provide for the restoration to former raiyats of certain lands which were sold for arrear of rent or from which they were ejected for arrears of rent or which were treated as abandoned, between the 1st day of January, 1939, and the 31st day of December, 1950, in the absence of the raiyats due to floods in the Kosi River." Section 3 vests power in the Collector to take steps for restoration of a holding to a raiyat if the holding has been sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent between the period mentioned above. Section 3 says that steps for restoration can be taken in respect of such holdings, whether they are in possession of the landlord or any other person. In view of section 4 notice of such proceeding has to be given to the landlord and other persons interested. Section 5 enables the landlord and any person in possession of such holding of object against the restoration. Under section 7, on consideration of the materials on record the Collector may order that a raiyat who bad been disposed in execution of the rent decree between the period mentioned above be put in possession of the lands in question. Section 9, which is relevant is as follows :- "9. Rights or raiyats on restoration Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, when any land is restored to a raiyat under the provisions of this Act:- (a) any mortgage or charge created by the landlord or any other person in respect of such land or any portion thereof shall not be binding on the raiyat and (b) all such rights as the raiyat had in respect of the said land and the incidents thereof before the sale ejectment or abandonment shall revive. " On a plain reading, section 9 gives an overriding effect to the orders passed under the provisions of the Land Restoration Act. In view of aforesaid section 9, any mortgage or charge created by the landlord or any other person in respect of such land shall not be binding on the Raiyat and his right in respect of such land before sale shall revive notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force. 7. In view of aforesaid section 9, any mortgage or charge created by the landlord or any other person in respect of such land shall not be binding on the Raiyat and his right in respect of such land before sale shall revive notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force. 7. So far as the Bhoodan Act, is concerned, it was enacted in the year 1954 "To facilitate the donation of lands in connection with the Bhoodan Yagna initiated by Shri Achary Vinoba Bhave to provide for the settlement of such lands with landless person or with a village community, Gram Panchayat, or with a co-operative society organised by the Bhoodan Yagna Committee". Section 10 of this Act, provides that any person being the owner of any land may donate such land to the Bhoodan committee or to Shri Acharya Vinoba Bhave by a declaration in writing in that behalf which is known as Bhoodan Yagna Danpatra. In view of section 11 of this Act, on receipt of the Bhoodan Yagna Danpatra, the Revenue Officer has to publish in the prescribed manner the said Danpatra inviting any written objection thereto within a period of 30 days from the date of the publication. Sub-section (2) requires the Revenue Officer to make a summary enquiry in the prescribed manner as to right, title and interest of the donor in such land and his competency to make a gift even if no written objection is filed within the period mentioned above. If written objection is filed, then such objection has to be heard in view of sub-section (3) of section 11 if the objections are not accepted or Danpatra is not superseded then the Revenue Officer has to confirm the said Danpatra in accordance with sub-section (5) of section 11. Sub-section (7) of section 11 provides that while doing so the Revenue Officer shall have power of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Section 13, which is relevant is as follows :- "13. Sub-section (7) of section 11 provides that while doing so the Revenue Officer shall have power of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Section 13, which is relevant is as follows :- "13. Vesting of lands in the Bhoodan Yagna Committee :- (1) The right, title and interest of the donor in any land donated to Shri Acharya Vinoba Bhave or to the Bhoodan Yagna Committee shall, on confirmation of the Bhoodan Yagna Danpatra in respect of that land, stand transferred to, and vest in the Committee for the purposes of the Bhoodan Yagna with effect from the date of the donation. (2) The land vesting in the Committee shall not be liable to attachment or sale in execution of any decree or order passed by the Civil Court against the Bhoodan Yagna Committee."• The other provisions of the Act, relate to grant of land to landless persons. Section 22 e empowers the Revenue Officer to eject any person who takes possession otherwise than in accordance with law of any land, in respect of, which Bhoodan Yagna Danpatra, has been confirmed under section 11. Section 22-A contains the procedure for ejectment of any person who had taken possession of the lands in respect of which Bhoodan Yagna Danpatra has been confirmed. Section 23 is as follows :- "23. Provisions of Act, to prevail over other laws. The provisions of this Act, shall have effect, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law for the time being in foce." In view of the provisions of the Bhoodan Act, referred to above, it is apparent that the Legislature has vested powers in clear and unambiguous terms in the Revenue Officer to protect the possession of the lands donated, after confirmation of the Danpatras under section 11 of the Act. Section 23 gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the Bhoodan Act, saying that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law for the time being in force, the provisions of the Act, shall have effect. 9. Section 9 of the Land Restoration Act, and section 23 of the Bhoodan Act, both having non-obstante clause, have created' a peculiar situation specially in the facts and circumstance of the present case. The Legislature has given the orders passed under both . the Acts overriding effect. 9. Section 9 of the Land Restoration Act, and section 23 of the Bhoodan Act, both having non-obstante clause, have created' a peculiar situation specially in the facts and circumstance of the present case. The Legislature has given the orders passed under both . the Acts overriding effect. What will happen when conflicting orders are passed under the two Acts ? Provisions of which Act, should prevail? I have already pointed out that both Acts have a special object in view. The Land Restoration Act, was enacted to restore lands to former raiyats which had been sold in execution of rent decree between 1.1.1939 and 31.12.1950. The provisions or the Land Restoration Act, are of far reaching effect inasmuch as they ignore the transactions which might have taken place for a period of more than decade. On the other hand, the object of the Bhoodan Act, is to protect the title and possession of the lands donated in connection with Bhoodan Yagna so that the movement initiated by Acharya Vinoba Bhave is not frustrated by some unscrupulous device. With that object powers have been vested in the Revenue Officers to protect the right title and interest over such lands. In the instant case conflicting orders have been passed under the two Acts having non-obstante clause. Now, it has to be determined as to whether order passed under the Land Restoration Act, shall prevail or the order under the Bhoodan Act, shall reign supreme. 10. The effect of non-obstante clause has been considered on several occasions and it is almost well settled that it excludes the operation of the provisions of the other Act, for the time being in force and gives an overriding effect to the Act, in question. Reference in this connection may be made to the cases of Aswini Kumar Ghose and another and Arbinda Bose and other1 and A.V. Fernondez V. The State of Kerala. But, in the present case the conflict is between the provisions of the two Acts, both having non-obstante clause. In the case of Aswini Kumar Ghose and another and Arbinda Bose (supra) reference was made- by the Supreme Court to the maxim-Postertorse, legas Priores contrari as abrogant (Broom's Legal Maxims Fdn. But, in the present case the conflict is between the provisions of the two Acts, both having non-obstante clause. In the case of Aswini Kumar Ghose and another and Arbinda Bose (supra) reference was made- by the Supreme Court to the maxim-Postertorse, legas Priores contrari as abrogant (Broom's Legal Maxims Fdn. 10 Page 347) and then it was observed as follows:- "Whether by force of the non-obstante clause literally construed as indicated above or of tile well established maxim of Constitution already referred to, the new Act, must have the effect of abrogating the power reserved." In other words, the Act, which has come in force later shall have an overriding effect on the Act, which was passed earlier although even that Act, has non-obstante clause. The Bhoodan Act, came in force in the year 1954 and, as such, later in point of time. It will be presumed that the Legislature was conscious of the Land Restoration Act, which had been enacted in the year 1951. As such, when the Legislature said in the Bhoodan Act, that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law for the time being in force, the provisions of that Act, shall have effect; provisions of Bhoodan Act, have overriding effect on the Land Restoration Act. The result will be that the orders passed in the Land Restoration case shall not affect the power of the Revenue Officer to confirm the Danpatra under section 11(5) of the Bhoodan Act. As a necessary corollary, it has to be held that after confirmation of Danpatras in view of section 13, the right, title and interest in the lands donated stood transferred to and vested in respondent Bhoodan Yagna Committee "with effect from the date of donation" i.e., from the year 1954. 11. Apart from that in view of section 13 of the Bhoodan Act, after confirmation the right, title and interest in the lands donated shall be deemed to have been transferred in the Bhoodan Yagna Committee with effect from the date of donation, i.e. from the year 1954. It is an admitted position that all steps for restoration of possession under the Land' Restoration Act, were taken in the year 1963. It is an admitted position that all steps for restoration of possession under the Land' Restoration Act, were taken in the year 1963. Applying the statutory fiction to its logical end it shall be deemed that the right, title and interest in the lands in question stood transferred and vested in the respondent Bhoodan Yagna committee since 1954 before any step had been taken for restoration of the lands in question under the provisions of the Land Restoration Act. In that view of the matter also any order passed under the land Restoration proceedings shall not affect the right, title and interest of the Bhoodan Yagna Committee, in the lands in question: 12. In my view, there is no merit in this writ application, and, it is accordingly, dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. I agree. Application dismissed.