Judgment 1. In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the orders contained in Annexures 3 and 4. A proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was initiated against the petitioner and by an order dated 10-2-1976 the Deputy Collector Land Reforms directed the petitioner to vacate the encroachment by 1-3-1976. Against that order he filed an appeal, which was registered as Case No. 182 of 1977-78. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, who heard the appeal dismissed the same on 8-2-1980/9-2-1980. These two orders are contained in Annexures 3 and 4. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the Additional Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal and, therefore, the appellate order contained in Annexure-4 is without jurisdiction. 3. An appeal against an order under Ss.6, 7 and 8 can be filed under S.11 of the Act. If such an order is passed by any officer other than the Collector of the district then the appeal lies to the Collector of the district or to any officer specially empowered by the State Government by the notification under S.11 of the Act. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a general notification empowering the Additional Collectors to discharge all or any of the functions of the Collector is not sufficient. For the purpose of hearing an appeal, according to learned counsel, a notification, as contemplated in S.11 of the Act, has to be made. 4. The definition of Collector is given in S.2(1) of the Act. The Collector means the Collector of the district and any officer empowered by the State Government to discharge all or any of the functions of the Collector under this Act. It appears that all Sub-divisional Officers and Additional Collectors within a district were empowered by the State Government to discharge all or any of the functions of the Collector under this Act by a notification in the official gazette. S.11(1)(ii) provides that if an order is passed by any officer other than the Collector of the district the appeal will lie to the Collector. S.11(1)(ii) provides that if an order is passed by any officer other than the Collector of the district the appeal will lie to the Collector. If a Collector means also an Additional Collector and more so if an Additional Collector has been authorised to discharge all the functions of the Collector of a district there is no reason why an Additional Collector or an Additional Deputy Commissioner cannot hear an appeal against an order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner has noted, as stated in the impugned order, that the Additional Deputy Commissioner has same power of the Deputy Commissioner and there were specific mentions of this in the original notification appointing an Additional Deputy Commissioner. I do not see any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel. The Additional Deputy Commissioner was competent to hear the appeal. No other point has been raised before me in support of the application. I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. 5. The application, therefore, fails and is dismissed but without costs.