Judgment G. C. Bharuka, J. 1. In the present cas,e, the petitioner in aggrieved by an order dated 2-11-1982 (Annexure-8) passed by the Collector, Nalanda purporting to exercise his power under Sec.45 (B) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby he has directed for reopening of the case of the petitioner and for its disposal afresh. 2. In this case, it appears that ceiling proceedings in respect of the petitioner have been disposed of by the D. C. L. R. Bihar Sharif by his order dated 10-7-1975 by which he came to the conclusion that 1.201/2 acres of land is in excess of the ceiling area. Subsequently, by the impugned order the Collector acting upon the dictates and directions of the Deputy Secretary, revenue Department, Government of Bihar has issued the impugned order without even indicating that except acting on the said dictates and directions, he has himself applied his mind to the materials on the record to find out as to whether any gross illegality or irregularity has been committed so as to justify the reopening of the proceedings. 3. In the impugned order the grounds given for reopening of the proceeding are namely : (I) that the age of the sons of the petitioner were not ascertained by directing osscification Test and (II) It was not ascertained as to whether the transfer of 14.55 acres of land to Ramchandra Prasad Singh was genuine or not? 4. The reasons given for reopening of the case are somewhat shocking. During the regularly initiated proceedings, no dispute was raised with regard to the age of the members of the family. There is no requirement thac the age of the members of the family should be ascertained, according to the provisions of the Act, only by ossciacation Test Reopening of the proceedings, which have been concluded after following the statutory procedure, cannot be allowed to be reopened on such flimsy or arbitrary grounds. similarly, the second ground, as disclosed in the impugned order, is also equally fallacious. similarly, the second ground, as disclosed in the impugned order, is also equally fallacious. There is no whisper in the impugned order as to what lands and on what date the lauds were transferred to some stranger, named as Ramchandra Prasad Singh, in the writ application the petitioner has specifically asserted that he had not made any transfer as alleged in the impugned order. 5. There is no counter affidavit in this case. Therefore, it has to be held that the second ground as well is absolutely baseless. 6. Under the circumstances, I quash the order as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application. This writ application is allowed, There will be no order as to cost. Writ application allowed.