Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. - In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 14-2-1989 passed in Land Ceiling case No 8 of 1983-84/1978-79 by respondent No.4 and the?order dated 1-4-1991 passed by respondent No, 3 in Revenue Appeal No.4 of 1989-90 as also the resolution of the Member, Board of Revenue dated 31-12-1991 in revision case No.82 of 1991 as contained in annexures 1 2 and 4 respectively. The petitioners have further prayed for the stayof further proceeding in Land Ceiling case No.8 of 1983-84 and realisation of the costs awarded against them by the revisional authority. 2. Admittedly, a proceeding under the provision of Bihar Land reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961 (hereinafter called and referred to as the Act) being Ceiling case no.26 of 1978-79 was initiated against the petitioners. A draft statement was prepared on 1-9-1990. The petitioner No, 1 did not file anv objection within the prescribed period but he filed it lateron which was rejected. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners against the said order which was also rejected. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a revision application before the Board of Revenue being Revision Case No.1 of 1981. 3. The petitioners have contended that during the pendency of the aforementioned revision application, Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Amendment Ordinance 1981 (Bihar Ordinance 66 of 1981), which was later on repealed and replaced by Bihar Act 55 of 1982. came into force and in terms of Sections 32-A and 32-B as inserted thereby, all proceedings abated and such proceedings were required to be started from the stage of Sec.10 of the aforementioned Act. The petitioners have contended that in that view of the matter, the Additional Member, Board of Revenue remanded the matter back to the Collector under the said Act. 4. It has been submitted that instead of proceeding afresh the respondent No 4 took up the case on the basis of the earlier draft statement. They, admittedly, did not file any objection under Sec.10 (3)" of the Act and thus the Collector by an order dated 24-10-1983 directed preparation and publication of the final statement under Sec.11 (1)of the Act. The petitioner No.1 preferred an appeal against the said order which was dismissed on 14-8-1985. They, admittedly, did not file any objection under Sec.10 (3)" of the Act and thus the Collector by an order dated 24-10-1983 directed preparation and publication of the final statement under Sec.11 (1)of the Act. The petitioner No.1 preferred an appeal against the said order which was dismissed on 14-8-1985. The petitioners thereafter filed a revision application being revision case No 339 of 1985 and the matter was again remanded back. 5. The petitioners have contended that the original number of the case being Ceiling Case No.26 of 1978-79 was renumbered as case No.8 of 1983-84 and the petitioners were directed to submit their objection against old draft statement agains. They submitted their objection which was rejected by reason of the impugned order dated 14-2-1989. As noticed hereinbefore, the appeal and the revision preferred by the petitioners against the said order were also dismissed. 6. The Member, Board of Revenue while dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioners also awarded a cost of Rs.500/- against him. 7. In this case, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 to 5. In the said counter-affidavit, it has been stated that from the order-sheet dated 6-8-1983 it would appear that the Additional Collector directed publication of draft statement under Sec.10 (2) of the Act and by an order dated 8-8-1983 it was held that the petitioners have 65.22 acres of class IV lands and were allowed to hold one unit of 30 acres of land and a draft publication was directed to be published accordingly. The said draft publication was published in the Zila Gazette dated 16-9-1983. The petitioners thereafter were called upon to file objection within 30 days. The petitioner No.2 was a Child aged about four years on 9-9-1970. The draft publication was directed to be made final by an order dated 24-10-83 and a final publication was made under Sec.11 (1) of the Act in Zila gazette dated 15-11-1983. By an order dated 17-1-1984, a notification under Sec.15 (1) of the Act was issued. It has further been submitted that upon remand of the matter by the member, Board of Revenue, the petitioner was heard and an order was passed on 14-2-1989 again allowing 30 acres of land to the petitioners. By an order dated 17-1-1984, a notification under Sec.15 (1) of the Act was issued. It has further been submitted that upon remand of the matter by the member, Board of Revenue, the petitioner was heard and an order was passed on 14-2-1989 again allowing 30 acres of land to the petitioners. Thereafter again draft publication was issued on 28-3-1989 and upon dismissal of the appeal by the Collector, the surplus land was again directed to be notified in the Zila Gazette which was done and the surplus lands were distributed through purchase to the landless persons and possession of the lands had also been delivered in Motihari and Chariya Anchals on 21-5-1992 and 27-5-1992 respectively. It has been reiterated that after the proceeding abated a fresh draft publication was made on 6-8-1983. It has been stated that the statements of the petitioners that the earlier draft publicntion was acted upon was false and in fact a fresh draft statement was prepared and published. It has further been stated that the verification of the lands made by the authorities was found to be correct. 8. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have annexed the copies of the draft statements as also the final publication thereof and the notifications under Sections 10, 11 and 15 respectively with the counter-affidavit which have been marked as Annexures-A, B and C thereto. 9. In view of the importance of the questions involved we have heard not only the learned counsel for the petitioners but also the other counsels who intended to make submissions on this point as also the Advocate-General. 10. The main trust of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that after abatement of the proceeding the matter has to start on a clean slate as a result whereof not only the effect of the earlier orders are wiped off but also the earlier returns and verification reports and/or all other materials collected become non-existent and thus the entire proceeding has to be started from the stage of Sec.6 of the said Act. 11. It has been submitted that in view of the Act 55 of 1982, a new area has to be allocated and a new classification of the land has to be made and thus, while issuing the draft statements under sub-section (1) of Sec.10, the materials collected earlier cannot be looked into. 11. It has been submitted that in view of the Act 55 of 1982, a new area has to be allocated and a new classification of the land has to be made and thus, while issuing the draft statements under sub-section (1) of Sec.10, the materials collected earlier cannot be looked into. It has also been submitted that in the objection under Sec.10 (3) of the Act, the land holder can raise only such questions which pertain to the draft statement and thus at that stage it is not possible for the landlords to bring in fresh materials in terms of the Amending Act No.55 of 1982. 12. The question which thus arises for consideration in this writ application is as to whether the materials collected before publication of draft statement in terms of Sec.10 (1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, is completely wiped off on coming into force of Act No.55 of 1982, that is, introduction of Sections 32-A and 32-B of the said Act. 13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that in view of the decisions of this Court in Morilai Padampat sugar Co. Pvt. Ltd V/s. The State of Bihar, AIR 1973 Patna 47 ; Ramtahal sah and others V/s. The State of Bihar and others, 1976 BBCJ 270 ; Chandrajot kuer V/s. The State of Bihar and others, 1983 BBCJ 197 : 1984 PLJR 90 ; smt. Kunti Sharma and others V/s. The State of Bihar and others, 1990 (1)PLJR 66 and a Full Bench decision in Harendra Prasad Singh V/s. The State of Bihar and another, 1984 PLJR 908 , the entire proceeding would be wholly wiped off and thus the old returns and the informations collected by the Collector including the reports called for from Anchal Adhikari and the other authorities cannot be looked into. 14. It has also been brought to our notice that by amendment in the definition of land as contained in Sec.2 (f) and insertion of section 4 (f) by Act No.55 of 1982 in terms whereof lands which prior thereto did not come within the purview of the said Act, have now been included and, thus a notice to the landholder to file a fresh return and/ or to obtain informations in relation thereto has become a must. 15. 15. By reason of amendments introduced in Bihar Act No.55 of 1982 in the definition of land the forest lands and/or even land perennially submerged under water have been included. Sec.4 (f) of the said Act introduced by the Amending Act provides ceiling limit of 45 acres equivalent to 18.211 acres of lands which are wholly sandy, forest land, land perennially submerged under water or other kind of lands, none f which yields paddy, rabi or cash crop which has been referred to as class VI land. 16. In this situation it has been contended that a public notice to the land-holders to submit return as contemplated under Sec.6 of the said Act as also collection of information through other agencies afresh are necessary. 17. The question, in my opinion, has to be answered with reference to the phraseology used in Sections 32-A and 32-B of the Act as introduced by reason of Bihar Act No.55 of 1982. Sections 32-A and 32-B read as follows : - 32-2 Abatement of appeal, revision, review or reference.- An appeal, revision, review of reference other than those arising out of orders passed under Sec.8 or sub-section (3) of section 16 pending before any authority on the date of commencement of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling area arid Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1982, shall abate : provided that on such abatement, the Collector shall proceed with the (date) afresh in accordance with the provisions of Sec.10 : provided further that such appeal, revision, review or referance arising out of orders passed under Sec.8 or sub-section (3)of Sec.16 as has abated under Sec.13 of the Bihar Land reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus land) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 (Bihar Ordinance No.66 of 1981), shall stand automatically restored before the proper authority on the commencement of this Act.32-B. Initiation of fresh proceeding.- All those proceedings, other than appeal, revision, review or reference referred to in section 32 pending on the date of commencement of the Bihar land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1982, and in which final publication under sub-section (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. " 18. " 18. From a perusal of Sec.23-A of the Act, it is evident that only appeals, revisions review or reference which were pending before any authority on the date of coming into force of 1982 Amendment Act, shall stand abated. The first proviso appended to Sec.32-A mandates that the Collector shall proceed with the case afresh in accordance with the provisions of Sec.10. 19. Section 32-B, however, provides that proceedings other than appeal, revision or review or reference referred to under Sec.32-A pending on the date of commencement of 1982 Act and in which final publication under sub-section (1) of Sec.11 of the Act as it stood before amendment of the aforesaid Act shall be disposed of afresh in accordance with the provisions of Sec.10 of the said Act. 20. Thus both in terms of Sections 23-A and 32-B, the proceeding has to be started afresh from the stage of Sec.10. It is necessary to bear in mind that by reason of Sec.32-A of the said Act, any appeal, revision or review or reference arising out of an order passed under Sec.8 does not abate. 21. Section 8 is a penal provision which provides for imposition of penalty for non-service of return in compliance with notice Sec.8 of the said Act, therefore, on a plain reading thereof appears to be mandatory in character. Thus, return is required to be filed voluntarily and/or pursuant to any notice issued by the Collector in this behalf. Non-filing of such a return entails penal consequences and such a penal proceeding does not abate and thus it cannot be said that the return filed under Sec.6 of the Act becomes non-est. The landholder in terms of Sec.6 of the said Act in his return is required to furnish the particulars mentioned therein. Sec.6 reads thus : "6. Non-filing of such a return entails penal consequences and such a penal proceeding does not abate and thus it cannot be said that the return filed under Sec.6 of the Act becomes non-est. The landholder in terms of Sec.6 of the said Act in his return is required to furnish the particulars mentioned therein. Sec.6 reads thus : "6. Public notice upon certain land-holders to submit return - (1)As soon as may be, after the commencement of Bihar Land reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus land) (Amdt.) Act, 1972, the State Government shall cause to be published a notice in the manner laid down in sub-section (3) calling upon all the landholders of the State who hold land in excess of the ceiling area anywhere in the State to submit to the Collector of the district where they ordinarily reside within thirty days to the date specified in the notice, a return containing the following particulars, namely 5 - (i) the total area and description of land held by the landholder anywhere in the State ; (ii) If the land-holder is a raiyat, the names and description of his under raiyats and the description of land held by them under him anywhere in the State ; (iii) The particulars of legal proceedings, if any, in respect of the land held by the land-holder pending on the date of submission of the return ; (iv) encumbrances on the land, if any, with their full particulars ; and (v) any other particulars that may be prescribed : provided that the Collector may, on an application made by the land-holder, extend the period specified in such notice for the submission of the return by a period not exceeding thirty days. (2) If the land-holder is a minor or a person of unsound mind, the return required under sub-section (1) shall be submitted by his guardian. (3) The substance of the notice shall be published in the official gazette and in not less than three issues of at least two newspapers having circulation in Bihar. (4) Where the land-holder or the guardian mentioned in sub-section (2), as the case may be, fails to submit the return required under sub-section (1) without sufficient cause, the collector may, after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard and adducing evidence, impose a fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. " 22. (4) Where the land-holder or the guardian mentioned in sub-section (2), as the case may be, fails to submit the return required under sub-section (1) without sufficient cause, the collector may, after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard and adducing evidence, impose a fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. " 22. Sub-section (4) of Sec.6 of the said Act also provides for im-position of fine if the landholder or the guardian fails to submit a return under sub-section (1) within the period prescribed without sufficient cause. The word land as defined under Sec.2 (f) and that used in Sec.6 of the Act appears to convey different meanings, 23. It is true that Sec.2 (f) while defining the word land uses the word both means and includes and, thus, the same is exhaustive, but the same is only for the purpose of Sec.5 the Act. 24. As indicated hereinbefore, difference clauses of Sec.6 postulate that not only the area and description of the la. pd held by the landholder is to be given, but the lands and the description under occupation of an under-raiyat as also the paticulars of legal proceedings in respect of the land held and encumbrances in relation thereto, have also to be furnished. This provision is pertinent inasmuch as in terms of the definition of a land-holder, even a mortgagee or an under raiyat comes within the purview thereof. 25. Rule 5 of 1963 Rules provide that the return has to be filed in Form No. LC 2. 26. It is pertinent to note that despite coming into force of Act 55 of 1982, no amendment has been made in the aforementioned Form No. LC 2. It is therefore, clear that even for the pupose of the return, all lands held and owned by the landholder or even those lands in relation whereof the question with regard to title thereof as also the nature of title etc. are disputed, were required to be furnished. 27. Section 10 provides for preparation of draft statement. Such a draft statement has to be prepared on the basis of information given by or on behalf of the landholder or collected under Sec.6, 8 or 9. Such draft statement may also be prepared on the informations obtained by the collector under Sec.7 of the Act. 27. Section 10 provides for preparation of draft statement. Such a draft statement has to be prepared on the basis of information given by or on behalf of the landholder or collected under Sec.6, 8 or 9. Such draft statement may also be prepared on the informations obtained by the collector under Sec.7 of the Act. Collection of information in terms of Sec.7 therefore does not appear to be mandatory. 28. Section 7, however, comes into play only when a person holding land in excess of ceiling area fails to submit the return under Sec.6. A draft statement, therefore, is possible to be prepared only on the basis of the infoimations furnished by the landholder. Once the relevant materials are available, the Collector is merely to cause a draft statement prepared on the basis thereof. 29. Rule 8 merely provides for procedure regarding checking of information given by or on behalf of tke landholder under Sec.6, 8 or 9 as obtained by the Collector under Sec.7. Therefore, even at the stage of Sec.10 (1) further verification and/or checking of materials may become necessary, only in a case where an additional return has been filed or additional information has been received by the Collector from any source whatsoever in terms of Sec.6 or 7 of the Act may have to be recheked or reverified in terms of Rule 8. 30. In my opinion, if it is the case of the landholder that he also has forest land or lands which are perennially submerged under water, the matter may be different but in a case where the landholder (foes not claim any forest land or any lands which perennially remains submerged under water or any other kind of land none of which yields Paddy, rabi or cash crop, in such event, the landholder is not required to furnish an additional return and/or fresh return incorporating the new claim. It may be mentioned that Sec.2 (f) read with Clause 4 (f) as amended by Act 55 of 1982, do not operate against the interest of the landholder but in his favour. 31. It may be mentioned that Sec.2 (f) read with Clause 4 (f) as amended by Act 55 of 1982, do not operate against the interest of the landholder but in his favour. 31. Even in a case where such type of lands as detailed in Clause (f)of Sec.4 of the Act were owned or held by the landholder and if a notification under Sec.11 (1) of the Act had already been published, the question of starting a fresh proceeding in relation thereto would not arise as in relation thereto only the proceedings can be reopened by the state or the Collector of the district in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Sec.45-B of the said Act. Thus as both Section (0 as also Sec.8 of the said Act and Rule 8 of the said Rule provide for giving of the relevant particulars and/or checking of the informations, the same must be held to be applicable in a case where additional informations are furnished or additional materials are procured by the Collector whether by reason of additionul return or fresh return by the landholder or informations gathered by him from any other agency. 32. In sum and substance, therefore, in my opinion, the first return submitted by the landholder and/or earlier reports submitted by the concerned authorities are not completely wiped off but may in a given case the same may only be supplemented. 33. In other words, by reason of any additional information if the collector after coming into force of the aforesaid Act No.55 of 1982 uses any fresh material against the landholder in respect whereof, no notice had been served upon him, the question of prejudice of the landholder would arise, but in abience thereof, the Collector would be entitled to proceed on the basis of all the materials which were before him prior to coming into force of Act 55 of 1982. However, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that even if additional return or. a fresh return is not submitted and additional information is not supplied to the Collector or any additional material is not placed before him, the Collector is required to apply his mind afresh on the materials which are on records inasmuch as in terms of Sections 32-A and 32-B, a fresh determination is required to be made. 34. a fresh return is not submitted and additional information is not supplied to the Collector or any additional material is not placed before him, the Collector is required to apply his mind afresh on the materials which are on records inasmuch as in terms of Sections 32-A and 32-B, a fresh determination is required to be made. 34. It is, in this connection, pertinent to mention that even where a draft publication has been made in terms of sub-section (2) of Sec.10 of the said Act, the landholder gets adequate opportunity to file objection which has to be adjudicated in terms of Sec.10 (3) thereof. Thus, even at that stage, the landholder would be entitled to bring any material which might have escaped the notice of the Collector in publishing the draft statement. 35. This matter may be considered from another angle. Both Sections 32-A and 32-B of the Act clearly state that the proceedings are to start afresh from the stage of Sec.10. It is now well known that statute has to be interpreted keeping in view the legislative intent. If the intention of the Legislature was to mandate that the proceeding shall begin from the stage of Sec.6, it could have said so in unambiguous terms. By process of reasoning, the courts are not permitted to relegislate the Act. 36. Reference in this connection may be made to the ease of K. P. Verma V/s. State of Bihar and others, 1988 PUR 1036 at page 1064 in which it has been held ; -"reference in this connection may be made to the case of Reserve bank of India V/s. Peerless Co. , (1987) (1) SCC 424 wherein the supreme Court has held as follows ; "interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the basis of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment with the glasses of the statutes maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to any as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statute have to be construed so that every word has a place and every thing is in its place - " in this connection, reference may further be made to "the interpretation and Application of Statutes" by Reed Divkersen. The author at page 135 has discussed the subject while dealing with the importance of context in the following terms : - ". . . . . . The essence of the langugage is to reflect, express, and perhaps even effect the conceptual matrix of established ideas and values that identified the culture to which it belongs,. For this reason, language has been called conceptual map of human experience. " 37. It is now well known that ordinary rule of construction of a statute is that the words must be interpreted in their natural grammatical sense unless that leads to some absurdity or inconsistencies or unless there be something in the context or in the object of the Statute to suggest to the contrary. When the language is plain and unambiguous and admits of only one meanirg, no question of interpretation arises. Reference in this connection may be made to Sutlers V/s. Briggs 1922 Appeal Cases 1. 38. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that the Legislature deliberately and intentionally directed reopening of the proceeding from the stage of Sec.10 of the Act and not prior thsreto. Reference in this connection may be made to Sutlers V/s. Briggs 1922 Appeal Cases 1. 38. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that the Legislature deliberately and intentionally directed reopening of the proceeding from the stage of Sec.10 of the Act and not prior thsreto. It is also interesting to note that those proceedings in which notification under Section 11 (1) of the Act has been issued, are not required to be reopened. Had the intention of the Legislature been that the proceedings shall have to be started afresh from the very beginning, it could have said so expressly. 39. Fransis Bennian in bis "stationary Interpretation" 2nd Edition at page 403 states thus - "the basis rule of stationary interpretation is that it is taken to be the legislators intention that the enactment shall be construed in accordance with the General guides to legislative intention laid down by law, and that where these conflict the problem shall be resolved by weighing and balancing the factors concerned. " At page 405, the learned author states : "it is a rule of law that where in relation to the facts of the case" (a) the enactment under enquiry is capableof one meaning ; and (b) on an informed interpretation of that enactment the interpietative recreation raise no real doubt as to whether that grammatical meaning in the one intended by the legislation, the legal meaning of the enactment corresponds to that grammatical meaning is the one intended by the legislator, the legal meaning of the enactment corresponds to that grammatical meaning, and is to be applied accordingly. " 40. In Chandrajot Kuers case Uday Sinha, J, held as follows : - "the combined effect of Sections 32-A and 32-B therefore is that the entire procedure from beginning to end must be carried out afresh. Since the proceedings have got to be decided afresh, all findings arrived at earlier stages of the proceedings must be considered to have been wiped off whether the findings of fact were in favour of the landholder or were in favour of the revenue. Findings in favour or against a landholder or Revenue must be considered afresh. " P. S. Mishra, J. in his concurrent judgment held S - "all these arguments and discussions, however, to my mind are academic. Findings in favour or against a landholder or Revenue must be considered afresh. " P. S. Mishra, J. in his concurrent judgment held S - "all these arguments and discussions, however, to my mind are academic. Sec.32-B introduced by the 1982 Ordinance has to be applied to all cases in which there were some determinations and orders made but the final publication of the draft statement had not been made under sub-section (1) of Sec.11 of the Ceiling Act. Whatever may be the position as to the effect of Sec.4-A and/or 4-B of the Ceiling Act introduced by the Bihar Act 1 of 1973 as amended by Bihar Act 9 of 1973 and Bihar Act 22 of 1976, whether the impugned order, were one passed under the law in force or not, as there has been no final publication of the draft statement as required under sub-section (1) of Sec.11 of the Ceiling Act, all such proceedings stood abated. In that view of the matter, whether the previous order was one which was the order under the Act or the subsequent order was one which was the order under the Act is of no relevancv and/or consequence. For the reasons given in the judgment of uday Sinha, J. with which I respectfully agree and the reasons that I have separately discussed, I agree with the conclusion. " (underlining is mine for emphasis.) 41 In Moti Padampat Sugar Co. Pvt. Ltd Majhauua and another V/s. The State of Bihar and others AIR 1972 Patna 47, it has been held as follows \ - "in all these cases it is clear that the procedures prescribed in Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules have not been followed. The returns had been filed, and marking them "without prejudice" could not make them non-est in the eye of law. Exemption had been claimed in respect of the entire area of the lands for which returns had been filed. That being so, it was necessary to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 9 of the Rules before preparing the draft statements under Rule 10. In the first instance, it was for the authorities to decide whether exemption could be granted under Sec.29 (1) (b) (vii) of the Act, or it was a case of granting exemption under Sec.29 (2) (a) (i ). In the first instance, it was for the authorities to decide whether exemption could be granted under Sec.29 (1) (b) (vii) of the Act, or it was a case of granting exemption under Sec.29 (2) (a) (i ). Since the authorities have not done so in any of the cases, the draft statements will have to be quashed and the cases will have to be sent back to the authorities concerned for proceeding in accordance with law. Because the cases have to go back, I do not propose to express any final opinion of mine on the first two points urged on behalf of the petitioners, or in regard to the validity of Ordinance No.64 of 1972. I, however, think that, if I record the rival contentions of the parties in these cases, the authorities may get help in deciding, under rule 9, the matter of granting the exemption. " it is thus, clear that what is wiped off is the findings and orders in favour or against the land holder or the revenue and not the materials collected and informations furnished or gathered. 42. In Harendra Prasad Singh"s case, 1984 PLJR 908 , the court was considering a case whether on the date of coming into force of Bihar Act no.55 of 1982, the objections filed by the landholder under sub-sction (3) of Sec.10 was pending and only in that context it was held : "in the light of the aforesaid discussion, it must be held that the final publication under the unamended Sec.11 (1) of the ceiling Act long after 9th of April, 1981 would be non-est because of the enforcement of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land (Amendment) Act, 1982. Once that is held the clue or indeed the answer to the three district questions automatically falls into its place. It is accordingly held as under : - (i) Under mandatory provision of Sec.32-B the Revenue authorities are obliged to dispose of afresh all pending proceedings except those in which final publication under sub-section (1) of Sec.11 of the Ceiling Act has already been made prior to the 9th of April, 1981, being the date of the commencement of the Amending Act. (ii) After the enforcement of the Amending Act OB the 9th of april, 1981, if the Revenue authority proceeds to publish a notification under the provisions of the old unamended section 11 (1) of the Ceiling Act it would plainly be ignoring and contravening Sec.32-B and nullifying the object and purposes thereof. (iii) The failure to dispose of the pending proceedings afresh and the final publication by way of notification under section 11 (1) of the old unamended Act after the 9th of april, 1981 would be wholly without jurisdiction and, therefore, non-est. " 43. In 1990 (1) PLJR 66, learned Single Judge of this Court merely followed the aforementioned decisions in Chandrojot Kuers case and Harendra Prasads case. 44. It is thus clear that in none of the aforementioned decisions, the questions which have been canvassed before us were raised or determined. It is now well known that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom (See Quinn V/s. Leatham, 1900-1901 All England Law Reporter (Reprint) page 1 at page 6 ). 45. It is also well known that decision is not an authority on the point which has not been canvassed. (See Goodyear Ltd. V/s. State of Haryana, 1990 (2) SCC 71 ). 46. Recently in Smt. Jyotsna Devi and others \. State of Bihar, 1992 (2) PLTR 702, one of us (R. M. Prasad, J.) held as follows : - "in my opinion, so long the final publication under sub-section (1)of Sec.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 Sec.10 of the Act. " 47. In this case, the concerned respondents did not given option before the draft publication prepared and published prior to coming into force the Act No.55 of 1982. As noticed hereinbefore, the respondents have contended that a fresh draft statement was prepared and an objection was invited from the landholder in terms of sub-section (2) of Sec.10 of the Act. 48. In this case, the concerned respondents did not given option before the draft publication prepared and published prior to coming into force the Act No.55 of 1982. As noticed hereinbefore, the respondents have contended that a fresh draft statement was prepared and an objection was invited from the landholder in terms of sub-section (2) of Sec.10 of the Act. 48. It is not case of the petitioners that by reason of the amending act No.55 of 1982, any substantial change was made so far as the determination of ceiling area of the landholder is concerned. In this writ application also, the petitioners have not contended that they had in their possession any land which comes within the purview of Sec.4 (f) of the act. The petitioners have further not been able to show as to whether|any prejudice was caused to them by reason of the draft publication made under Sec.10 (1) of the Act on the basis of the return submitted by the landholder himself and or the verification made in this regard by the authorities in terms of Rule 1 of the Rules. It is not the case of the petitioners that the procedures laid down under Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules had not been complied with at all. 49. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, no case has been made out by the petitioners for interference with the impugned orders. This application is, therefore, dismissed but without any order as to costs. Application dismissed.