Judgment P.K.Sinha, J. 1. 5 cases namely, Nos. 68, 83, 84, 85 and 86 of the year 1988 are heard together and is being disposed of by common order. The learned counsels appearing for both the sides were heard. Mr. Indu Shekhar Singh appeared on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. T.N. Jha led the arguments on behalf of the State. 2. This case has long history. The petitioners had come to the Board of Revenue and also gone to the Hon ble High Court. Finally on remand the Addl. Collector, West Champaran passed the final order dated 26-11-84 in detail. The petitioners were allowed two units and 150 acres of land was Declared surplus. The petitioners went to the Collector, West Champaran in appeal. He passed final orders in revenue appeal No. 193/84-85 by a common order and dismissed the same upholding the orders of the Addl. Collector. 3. Both the counsel for petitioner and State have submitted notes of argument. The most important point being raised by petitioners before this court is that after abatement under Sec.32-A, the proceeding according to law should begin from the stage of Sec.10 and not from the stage of Sec.10(ii). The petitioners have contended that if it begins from the stage of Sec.10 as laid down in Sec.32-A and B the Collector will have to check the information quoted under Sec. 6, 8, 9 or information obtained by Collector under Section 7 in the prescribed manner and shall call upon Anchal Adhikari/Circle officer to make a verification and to send report. 4. The checking has to be done under "Rule 8 of the Rules where procedure under Sec.10(i) has been laid down in detail as follows: (i) The Collector receiving the original returns under Sec. 6 or 8 or the information under Section 9 and the Collector receiving copies thereof under Rule 6 shall call upon the Anchal Adhikari/Circle Officer/Block Development Officer/Project Executive Officer of the area concerned in which jurisdiction the lands are situate to make verification and to send to him a report after verification and he shall comply with the requisition accordingly and thereafter the same shall further be checked and verified by the Collector having jurisdiction over the area concerned with reference to uptodate rent receipts and other relevant revenue records including records of rights. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners it is mandatory that when the case abates under Sections 32-A and B a fresh verification reports under Rule 8 must be called from the Anchal Adhikari otherwise the proceeding becomes vitiated. The learned Counsel has relied upon Full Bench decision of Harendira Pd. Singh V/s. State 1984 BBCJ page 879. Their lordship of the Full Bench have held in para 10 that "entire proceeding from beginning to end must be carried out afresh". They have further held that "not only Sec.32-B is mandatory but in essence, it obliterates and wipes off what had been done earlier and inevitably the thing could not be left invacumm but have to be redetermined". "It wipes off the writing on slate leaving it clean to be written afresh. 5. The learned Counsel has also quote the ruling of the Board of Revenue in case No. 286 of 1988-89 where the Board of Revenue (Mr. Wati Ao) has held that a fresh report must be called when the proceeding was opened afresh on account of amendment of 32-B of the Act. 6. The learned counsel for the State has differed with the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to him Sec.10(iii) of the Act has given adequate opportunity to file objections and it is not necessary that proceeding should be taken from the stage of Sec.10 and a fresh verification done under Rule 8 following that. That contention of the learned counsel for the State Mr. T.N. Jha has not much force in it. I have perused the ruling of the Full Bench. The Full Bench has not only laid down the rule but emphasized on what was laid down in Chandrajot Kuar V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. 1983 BBCJ page 197 to the following terms- "The above provision shows that all proceedings pending on date of commencement of the Ordinance of 1981 and in which final publication under Sec.11(i) has not been made shall be disposed of fresh in accordance with the provision under Sec.10 of the Act. The combined effect under Section 32-A & B, therefore, is that the entire procedure from beginning to end must be carried out afresh. Since the proceedings have got to be decided afresh. The combined effect under Section 32-A & B, therefore, is that the entire procedure from beginning to end must be carried out afresh. Since the proceedings have got to be decided afresh. All findings arrived at earlier stages of the proceedings must be considered to have been wiped off whether the findings of the fact were in favour of the land-holder or in favour of the Revenue. Findings in favour or against a land-holder or Revenue must be considered afresh." 7. In view of the law clearly laid down by their Lordships in both the cases it is crystal clear that after abatement under Sections 32-A and B the cases have to be done afresh from the stage of Sec.10 and not from 10(ii) as advised in the Executive guidelines to the revenue authorities. 8. From the order passed by the Additional Collector it is clear that he has depended upon the verification report of Anchal Adhikari, Narkatiaganj dated 14-9-77 and the report of Anchal Adhikari, Bagha dated 13-9-77. These reports ought to have been called afresh from the Anchal Adhikari who should send the fresh verification reports after noticing the landholders under Rule 8 of the Rules. Since this has not been done the entire proceedings has got vitiated. 9. The other contentions of the petitioners are not being heard for the present by this Court. They are free to raise these before the learned Additional Collector where the case goes on remand. 10. Under the circumstances the impugned orders of the learned Collector, West Champaran Mr. S.N. Dubey and Additional Collector, West Champaran are quashed and the cases are being sent on remand to Additional Collector, West Champaran for fresh trial from the stage of Sec.10 as envisaged under law. The Additional Collector is directed to dispose of the cases within a period of four months.