Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order passed by various authorities under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquistion of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as contained in Annexures 5, 9 and 10 to the writ petition and for a mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the title and possession of the petitioners over the lands in dispute. 2. According to the petitioners, in short the facts of the case are that a Land Ceiling Case No. 46 of 1974-75 was initiated against Late Shri Panchanan Mukherjee, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2 and in obedience to the notice Late Shri Mukharjee had filed a return on 30-7-1975. After receipt of the verification reports from the respective Anchal Adhikaris a draft publication was made on 30-6-1966 showing 128.06 acres of land as surplus and Shri Mukherjee was allowed to retain 15.24 acres of land. Against this an objection was filed under Sec. 10(3) of the Act and after hearing the matter an order for final publication was made. Against this order the petitioners filed appeal and later a revision and finally before the Member, Board of Revenue, being Revision Case No. 485 of 1977 the aforesaid revision was allowed and the Board of Revenue after setting aside the orders impugned, remitted back the matter to the concerned authorities for fresh disposal in accordance with law. On 9-1-1981, the Additional Collector Bettiah on remand heard the matter and finally passed an order dated 9-1-1981 holding that there was no surpuls land of the land-holder and further directed for initiation of separate proceeding against Shri Chandi Mai, a deity, Smt. Kanaklata Roy Choudhary and Smt. Rekha Battacharya, the two sisters of late husband of petitioner No. 1. A true copy of the Additional Collector, Bettiah has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. Thereafter fresh land ceiling proceedings were initiated against the three, referred to above, being Ceiling Case Nos. 292/8182, 293/81-82 and 294/81-82. It has been alleged that although the proceeding against the land-holder Shri Panchanan Mukharjee and consequently, against the petitioners had concluded, it was sought to be re-opened under Sec. 32-A of the Act, vide Annexure 4 and a draft publication was made ignoring the earlier order (Annexure 2). 292/8182, 293/81-82 and 294/81-82. It has been alleged that although the proceeding against the land-holder Shri Panchanan Mukharjee and consequently, against the petitioners had concluded, it was sought to be re-opened under Sec. 32-A of the Act, vide Annexure 4 and a draft publication was made ignoring the earlier order (Annexure 2). Notices were again served on the husband of petitioner No. 1. The land-holder in terms of the notice filed an objection under Sec. 10(3) of the Act in which besides raising other objection, inter alia, contended that the authorities had no jurisdiction to re-open the case under Sec. 32-A of the Act. A true copy of the said objection has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. 3. On 1-9-1983 the D. C. L. R. disposed of the said proceeding by his order, as contained in Annexure 5 against which order an appeal was filed before the Collector, which was numbered as R.A. No, 334 of 1983-84. The said appeal was dismissed by the Collector on 3-9-1984 against which a revision was filed before the Member, Board of Revenue which was numbered as Revision Case No. 363 of 1984. The said revision was allowed by the Board vide order dated 4-9-1985 and the case was again remitted back to the Collector, West Champaran for reconsideration. It appears that, in the meantime, land-holder Shri Panchanan Mukharjee died in November, 1984 and an application was filed by the petitioners before the Additional Member, Board of Revenue in Board Revision Case No. 364 of 1984 for substitution of their names as heirs of Late Panchanan Mukherjee. This fact has been mentioned in the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners before the Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah, a true copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner, Appeal No. 334 of 1984-85 was again dismissed on 20-1-1987 by the Collector without following the direction given by the Board as he did not allow them to lead any evidence. A true copy of the said order datad 20-1-1987 has been annexed as Annexure 9 to the writ petition. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said order of the Collector again filed a Revision Case No. 42 of 1987 before the Member, Board of Revenue. A true copy of the said order datad 20-1-1987 has been annexed as Annexure 9 to the writ petition. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said order of the Collector again filed a Revision Case No. 42 of 1987 before the Member, Board of Revenue. The said case was heard and by a judgment dated 15-101987, the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar dismissed the same. A true copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure 10 to the writ petition. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the aforementioned orders, as contained in Annexures 5, 9 and 10, have filed the present writ application. 4. The writ petition was admitted on 9-9-1988 and pending final hearing the operation of the impugned orders was stayed. It appears that later a petition was filed with a prayer to add the persons named therein as party respondents to the writ application, which was not opposed on behalf of the petitioners and, accordingly, the prayer was allowed and the persons mentioned in the petition at flag B had been ordered to be added as party respondents. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State but the petition was opposed by Mr. Rafat Alam, learned Standing Counsel No. VI. 5. Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that in view of the order, as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition, no proceeding was pending against the petitioners and, therefore, reopning of the proceeding under Sec. 32-A or under Sec. 32-B of the Act was wholly without jurisdiction. Sec. 32-B of the Act reads as follows : "32-B. Initiation of fresh proceeding,--All those proceedings, other than appeal, revision, review or reference referred to in Sec. 32-A pending on the date of commencement of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceilling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1982 and in which final publication under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 11 of the Act as it stood before the amendment by aforesaid Act, had not been made, shall be disposed of afresh in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 10 of the Act. Under the said provision it would appear that all proceedings other than those referred to in Sec. 32-A pending on the date of commencement of the Bihar Act 55 of 1982 and in which final publication under Sub-sec. Under the said provision it would appear that all proceedings other than those referred to in Sec. 32-A pending on the date of commencement of the Bihar Act 55 of 1982 and in which final publication under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 11 of the Act had not been made, had to be disposed of afresh in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 10 of the Act. The petitioners have nowhere stated in the petition that final publication under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 11 of the Act had already been made in the proceeding before taking up the proceeding in question afresh. 6. learned Counsel for the State in this regard has referred to Annexure 2 to show that it was not a final order inasmuch as there wag no order passed for final publication of the draft statement in the Official Gazette of the district. Moreover, nothing has been produced by the petitioners to show that a copy thereof was duly certified by the Collector in the prescribed manner and sent to the land-holder by registered post with acknowledgment due. Thus, it was submitted by Mr. Alam that under Sec. 32-B of the Act a fresh proceeding was taken up in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 10 of the Act and the land-holder filed objection also which was duly considered and the order as contained in Annexure 5 was passed. learned Counsel also submitted that there being no illegality in the proceeding, this Court will refrain from interfering with the orders impugned. I find substance in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the State. From the facts, as stated in the writ petition, it cannot be held that no proceeding was pending against the petitioners and that there was final publication made under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 11 of the Act, which could prohibit disposal of the proceeding afresh under Sec. 32-B of the Act. 7. It was then submitted on behalf of the petitioners that re-opening can only be in a case where there is fresh material and not merely for verifying the correctness of the findings already arrived at. Further, it was submitted that once unit had been granted, then it cannot be altered except in appeal. In support of these submissions learned Counsel relied on the decisions reported in 1982 PLJR 331--Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. Further, it was submitted that once unit had been granted, then it cannot be altered except in appeal. In support of these submissions learned Counsel relied on the decisions reported in 1982 PLJR 331--Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. and 1977 CJ 696--Dwarika Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors.. In my opinion, none of these submissions is sustainable in the facts of the present case inasmuch as it is not a case of re-opening of a proceeding under Sec. 45-B of the Act the scope of which was under consideration in the aforementioned decision of Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh (supra). In fact, it is a case of disposal of the proceeding afresh under Sec. 32-B of the Act and not of re-opening of a proceeding under Sec. 45-B of the Act and as there was no final publication under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 11 of the Act, the proceeding was pending on the date of commencement of Bihar Act 55 of 1982 and all such proceeding had to be disposed of afresh in accordance with the provisions of Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 10 of the Act. 8. learned Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the findings already arrived at in respect of the same matter such as regarding attaining of majority and that no surplus land was there with the land-holder in order, as contained in Annexure 2, will act as res judicata and in any case in a subsequent proceeding reason has to be assigned as to why the finding arrived at earlier is not correct. I do not agree with the first submission that the findings arrived at earlier will be hit by the principle of res judicata. 9. In my opinion, so long the final publication under Sub-sec. (1) of Section 11 of the Act is not made, the findings will not bind the authority exercising powers and disposing of a proceeding afresh under Sec. 32-B of the Act. Under the said provision, the authority has to act completely independently in disposing of the proceeding afresh in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Act. Moreover, from the order it appears that petitioner No. 2 had appeared in the Matriculation Examination but had not produced any document in support of his age and thereby tried to suppress the same. Moreover, from the order it appears that petitioner No. 2 had appeared in the Matriculation Examination but had not produced any document in support of his age and thereby tried to suppress the same. This aspect has also been fully considered by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Bettiah. In such a situation, the Deputy Collector has rightly rejected the objection of the petitioners regarding allotment of unit. I do not find any illegality in the orders impugned. 10. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed but without costs.