Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. The petitioners pray to quash an order dated 5-9-1988 passed by the Collector, Katihar (respondent No. 2) transferring the records of Land Ceiling Case No. 90 of 1973-74 State V/s. Jagdish Kumar Singh to the Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Katihar (Respondent No. 3) for its re-hearing as contained in annexure-3 to the writ petition. 2. Perusal of an earlies order dated 4-8-1988 shows that the aforementioned order was passed on the basis of a note dated 4-8-1988 submitted to the Collector by Respondent No. 3 that the Additional Collector, Katihar has passed orders under Sec. 10 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) on 26-10-1987 and had sent the records for publication under Sec. 11-A of the Act and during scrutiny of records several blunders stated therein were found and thus the order dated 26-10-1987 be anulled and an order can be passed directing the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms to re-hear after the stage of draft publication. 3. When this writ application was placed under the heading For Admission on 4-5-1989, after hearing the parties, the following orders were passed: The learned Counsel for the petitioners has raied two points: The first point raised is: the re-opening of the proceeding has been made without prior notice to the. landholder and the second point is, the Collector has exercised his power under Sec. 45-B without himself considering the matter. He has passed a routine order on the basis of the report of the Additional Collector. So far as the first point is concered, the entire ordersheet from 10-3-1988 has not been annexed so as to know whether any notice was served on landholder. Mr. Katnla Pati Singh appearing on behalf of State, however, has contended that this proceeding which was initiated in he year 1972-73 was pending under Sec. 10 of the Act on coming into force of 1982 amendment. There has been no publication under Sec. 11 (1) on that date. Therefore, the entire proceeding should have been re-initiated and re-opined under Sec. 32-B of the Act. The learned Counsel for the parties are given two weeks time to file affidavit and counter-affidavit as they may desire so that the matter could be disposed of at the stage of admission. Therefore, the entire proceeding should have been re-initiated and re-opined under Sec. 32-B of the Act. The learned Counsel for the parties are given two weeks time to file affidavit and counter-affidavit as they may desire so that the matter could be disposed of at the stage of admission. Let this case be listed after two weeks, within which time the order-sheet should also be produced. In the meantime, the Additional Collector shall not deliver the final judgment. Let a copy of this order be given to the parties. 4. On 4-7-1989 the petitioners filed a supplementary affidavit which is on the record. Thereafter the matter was further heard on 7-7-1989 when the following order was passed: This application will be heard. No notice need be issued as the Respondents have been represented by the State Counsel. Pending final hearing of the application, the lands will not be distributed if not distributed earlier. Any other action taken will be subject to the final result of the application. Let the hearing of the case be expedited. 5. Through the supplementary affidavit, a further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 14-4-1989, as contained in Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit. 6. Mr. Praduman Narain Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted as follows: (i) The order of transfer of the proceeding passed by respondent No. 2 is misconceived inasmuch as in absence of any appeal and/or revision, an order of re-opening of the proceeding with out notice to the petitioners was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and in any view of the matter Respondent No. 2 has committed an error and even assuming that the Collector had such a jurisdiction to make transfer, in view of the notes submitted by the Additional Collector, Katihar (respondent No. 3) himself, the proceeding was illegally transferred to his Court, who (respondent No. 3) by an order of even date proceeded to issue notice to Jagdish Kumar Singh, father of the petitioners. (ii) The petitioners being sons of Jagdish Kumar Singh, aforementioned, who were granted units earlier by order dated 26-10-1987, as contained in Annxure-1, they have got locus to move this Court. 7. Learned Government Pleader No. I frankly states that in this case no counter affidavit could be filed on behalf of the respondents. He, however defends the impugned order. 8. 7. Learned Government Pleader No. I frankly states that in this case no counter affidavit could be filed on behalf of the respondents. He, however defends the impugned order. 8. From perusal of the order of the Collector, the following facts appeared:- He transferred the records to the court of the Additional Collector, Land Ceiling., observing that he will re-hear it (the proceedings). 9 Perusal of annexure-3 does not show that the Collector has passed his orders under Sec. 45-B of the Act, or as an appellate authority. The Additional Collector, Land Ceiling (respondent No. 3) was as much as a Collector under the Act as the Additional Sub-divisional Officer was. The jurisdiction was concurrent. In this view of the matter, unless the order dated 26 10-1987 passed by the Additional Sub-divisional Officer, Katihar is nullified, there was no question for re hearing the petitioners in regard to the objections already disposed of earlier by order dated 26-10-1987. 10. In the aforementioned view of the matter, the direction of respondent No. 2 to the Additional Collector, Land Ceiling to re-hear the proceedings was without jurisdiction. 11. In the result, the impugned order dated 5-8-1988 as stated above, (as contained in Annexure-3) is set side. Since the impugned order has been quashed, the order dated 14-4-1989 (as contained in annexure-5) passed by respondent No. 3, pursuant to the order dated 5-8-1988 aforementioned, is also quashed as without jurisdiction. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above but in the peculiar facts and circumstances, without cost. However, this order should not be interpreted to mean that the State of Bihar cannot challenge the legality and/or propriety of the order dated 26-10-1987 in accordance with law. 12. Let a writ of certiorari issue accordingly.