Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against the order dated 13-12-1993, passed by the respondent No. 5 as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application, an order dated 9-2-1983, passed by respondent No. 4 as contained in Annexure 3/A thereof and an order dated 3-8-1983, passed by the respondent No. 3 as contained in Annexure 3/B to the writ application. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. Plot No. 71/3 (16 decimals), plot No. 931/8, measuring 10 decimals, plot No. 832 measuring 67 decimals, appertaining to Khata No. 259 of village Mahuawan in the district of Gopalganj, were recorded as Gairmajrua land in the revisional survey Khatiyan. The said lands were allegedly donated to Acharya Binoba Bhave and consequently the aforesaid lands legally wasted to Bhoodan Committee. The petitioner was granted Dan Patra in respect of 16 decimials of land each out of plot No. 71/8 as also plot No. 831/8 76 decimals of land plot No. 832, total area being 1 acre 52 decimals of land. According to the petitioner the land Reforms Deputy Collector by his order dated 5-9-1991 in Bhudan Case No. 126/71 confirmed the aforementioned possession. The petitioner has contended that the Land Reforms Deputy Collector was under an obligation to divide the said land and assess rent in respect thereof for which the petitioner filed an application on 1-12-1978. In the said application the respondent No. 2 appeared and filed a petition alleging inter alia therein that there had been a proceeding under Sec. 145, Cr. PC between the petitioner and the Secretary of the Committee and the said proceeding the possession of respondent No. 2 has been found in respect of same of the plots. 3. The petitioner has contended that plot No. 71 was not the subject-matter of the aforementioned proceedings. By reason of the impugned order dated 13-12-1982, (Annexure 3 to the writ application) the respondent No. 5 in view of the aforementioned decision under Sec. 145, Cr. PC to pass any order in favour of the petitioner holding inter alia therein that the disputes between the parties had finally been resolved in the aforementioned proceedings. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order and the respondent No. 4 by an order dated 9-2-1983 as contained in Annexure 3/A to the writ application dismissed the said appeal. PC to pass any order in favour of the petitioner holding inter alia therein that the disputes between the parties had finally been resolved in the aforementioned proceedings. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order and the respondent No. 4 by an order dated 9-2-1983 as contained in Annexure 3/A to the writ application dismissed the said appeal. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision application before the respondent No. 2 and by reason of an order dated 3-8-1983 (Annexure 3/B) the said revision application was also dismissed and it was held therein that the application filed by the petitioner was not within the purview of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and as such the revision petition was not maintainable. 4. Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra has raised a short question in support of this application. It was submitted that in the facts and circumstances so this case, the application filed by the petitioner before the respondent No. 5 was maintainable under Sec. 18 of the said Act. It was further submitted that even assuming that there had been a proceeding under Sec. 145, CPC in respect of the some of the plots which were the subject-matter of Annexure-1 to the writ application, the respondent No. 5 should not have refused to determine the quantum of rent payable by the petitioner only on the basis of purported decision under Sec. 145, Cr. PC. The learned Counsel further submitted that the appellate authority (respondent No. 4) has also committed illegality in so far as he did not assign any reason whatsoever in support of the order. According to the learned Counsel the respondent No. 3 has also committed illegality in holding that the application filed by the petitioner was not maintainable under any of the provision of the said Act. Sec. 18 of the said Act reads as follows:- - 18. Division of holding and distribution and assessment of rent.-- (1) If any land, which has vested in the committee under the provisions of this Act, is a portion of a holding, the Revenue Officer shall on the application of the Committee or any person to whom such land has been granted (or on his own motion) divide the holding and distribute the rent payable in respect thereof in such manner as he deems fair and equitable. (* * * *): Provided that before making any order under the sub-section, the Revenue Officer shall hear the parties and make such enquiry as may be necessary: (2) If such land is a proprietors private land as defined in Sec. 120 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (VIII of 1885) or a landlords privileged land as defined in Sec. 18 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (Ben. Act VI of 1908), or Bakashi land or gairmazrua malik land or any other class of land for which rent has not been assessed, the Revenue Officer shall assess the rent thereof in the prescribed manner. 5. As the petitioner was allegedly granted portions of the aforementioned plots as is evident from the statements made in Paragraphs 3 and 5 to the writ application and as noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that the petitioners application for fixation of rent was maintainable under Sec. 18 of the said Act. In this situation, the finding of the respondent No. 3 to the affect that the revision application was not maintainable does not appear to be correct. Further from a perusal of the order dated 9-2-1983, passed by respondent No. 4 and as contained in Annexure 3/A to the Writ application it appears that the said author to has not shown any reason whatsoever in support of the order. In this view of the matter, the said order cannot also be sustained. In the result the orders as contained in Annexures 3/A and 3/B to the writ application are set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No. 4 for a fresh decision in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.