JUDGMENT G. C. Bharuka, J.-This Review application has been filed by petitioners pursuant to the observations made by the Supreme Court in its Older dated 3-3-1986 passed in S. L. P. (Civil) No. 17519 of 1985. 2. Without dwelling much on the facts, it will suffice td state that according to the petitioners certain lands belonging to them had been erroneously declared as surplus pursuant to the proceeding being ceiling case No. 776 of 1973-74/2 of 1975-76, relating to Anchal Adapur within the district of East Champaran, initialed against Respondent no. 5 (Ram Swaroop Sah) under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of surplus Land) Act; 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), According to the petitioners they and the private Respondents are descendants of a common ancestor, Radhey Sah. 3. Aggrieved by the said action of the authorities under the Act, the petitioners filed an application before the Collector under Section 45 B of the Act for a direction for reopening of the case and its disposal afresh in accordance with the pro visions of the Act. It appears that either pursuant to some observations made by the Collector or because of some misconception of law entertained by the counsel appearing for the petitioners, an application was filed for treating the said petition as under Section 37 of the Act. On filing of such a petition, the Collector by his order dated 3-10-1978 held that since according to him a petition under Section 37 of the Act should have been filed at the first instance only before "the Collector under the Act" and not before him, therefore, the petition was not maintainable. The petitioner thereafter filed C.W.J.C. No. 195 of 1979, inter alia for quashing of the said order of the Collector dated 3-10-1978 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) on the ground that he had erred in not exercising his jurisdiction vested in him. The• aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge by Judgment dated 23-2-1985. Against the said Judgment, the petitioners preferred an Appeal being L.P.A. No. 29 of 1985. The L.P.A. was dismissed in limine by a Bench of this Court on 3-10-1985. The• aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge by Judgment dated 23-2-1985. Against the said Judgment, the petitioners preferred an Appeal being L.P.A. No. 29 of 1985. The L.P.A. was dismissed in limine by a Bench of this Court on 3-10-1985. 'Then the petitioners preferred aforementioned S.L.P. in the Supreme Court but the same was allowed to be withdrawn with a leave to the petitioners to apply to this Court for review of its Judgment. In this background the petitioners have filed the present review application. 4. The learned single Judge while dismissing the writ application had observed in paragraph no. 5 of the impugned Judgment that in a large number of such cases where grievance was made by the land-holders that the land has been declared surplus in the proceeding started against some other persons, those persons were directed to file application under section 45 B of the Act before the Collector under the Act. But similar relief was refused to the petitioners on the ground that since after having chosen a remedy before the Collector they had given up the same and did not even abide with the directions of the Collector as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition and, therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to any relief from the Court. 5. In my opinion the order of the Collector as contained in Annexure 4' to the writ application is based on a complete misconception of law and it can not sustain. The expression "Collector" as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act is an inclusive definition and necessari1y it takes within its ambit the Collector of the District as well. Section 37 of the Act authorises the Collector to decide the disputes for which no specific provision is made under the Act and section 45 B of the Act authorities the State Government as well as the Collectors of the Districts authorised in this be-half, to direct for Te-opening of the case in case any material irregularity is found to have occurred. As such under both the sections, the Collector of the District had jurisdiction to grant proper relief to the petitioners. Labelling of the petition by a person under a particular Section is wholly inconsequential for determining the jurisdiction of a statutory authority. As such under both the sections, the Collector of the District had jurisdiction to grant proper relief to the petitioners. Labelling of the petition by a person under a particular Section is wholly inconsequential for determining the jurisdiction of a statutory authority. In my view the Respondent-Collector has acted illegally in refusing to exercise his jurisdiction under the Act to grant proper relief to the petitioners. There is nothing under the Act to show that an aggrieved person is to first approach the Additional Collector or any other statutory functionary under the Act before approaching the Collector of the District. The petition filed before the Collector ought to have been entertained and disposed of in accordance with law. 6. In the above view of the matter, I feel that the learned Single Judge had wrongly dismissed the writ application. Since the relevant provisions of the Act were not looked• into and/or not placed before the Bench at the time of admission of the L.P.A., therefore it has resulted in ill-limine dismissal of the L.P.A. This has led to gross miscarriage of justice. Since there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, justice warrants a review of the order dated 3-10-85 passed in L.P.A. 29/85, therefore, it is held that the writ application as filed by the petitioners be allowed to the extent that the order dated 3-10-78 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) is quashed and the Collector (Respondent no. 4) is directed to entertain the application filed by the petitioners under the provisions of the Act and dispose of the same in accordance with law. However, under the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. G. G. Sohani, C. J.-I agree.