Judgment S. B. Sinha. J. 1. This application is directed against the resolution dated 16-1-1993 passed by the Additional Member. Board of Revenue, as contained in Annexure 6 to the writ application as also the order dated 19-10-1991 passed by the Collector, Gaya in Land Ceiling case No.122 of 1983-84/12 of 1988-89 whereby the order dated 22-11-1983 passed by the additional Collector, Gaya was affirmed in terms whereof the lands of the petitioner having an area of 33 acres and 8 decimals of land situated in village Kamaldah in the district of Gaya, were declared surplus in terms of the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). 2. The fact of the matter is as follows : the petitioner has claimed the land in question details whereof have been mentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ application having an area of 33.8 acres. She is said to have purchased the lands in question in the year 1965 from Goswarmi Kashi Giri and Goswami basant Giri. Kashi Giri purchased the lands in question from one Akbar Khan, on 4-7-1959 i. e. prior to 22-10-1959. It is alleged that the aforementioned Kashi Giri was neither the mahanth nor did he purchased the lands from the Mahanth. It was, therefore, contended by the petitioner that as the original land owner was Akbar Khan and the transaction having been effected prior to 22-10-1959, the same could not have been a subject matter of an enquiry under the said Act. The petitioner, however, was served with a notice dated 29-2-1983 in Land ceiling case No.101 of 1981-82 to show cause as to why he shall not be declared to be a Farzidar or Benamidar of the Mahant, bodh Gaya Math. 3. The petitioner filed a show cause. The matter thereafter came up before the Board of Revenue in case No.315 of 1984. The Member, Board of Revenue by reason of an order dated 28-3-1981 as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application remanded the matter with the following observation ; "on a consideration of the arguments of the two sides : scrutiny of the relevant papers and documents it is clear that Basant "giri was Chela of Bodh Gaya Mahanth. The Member, Board of Revenue by reason of an order dated 28-3-1981 as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application remanded the matter with the following observation ; "on a consideration of the arguments of the two sides : scrutiny of the relevant papers and documents it is clear that Basant "giri was Chela of Bodh Gaya Mahanth. It is also correct that the ceiling Act was enacted subsequent to the Supreme Court Compromise decree dated 9-9-1957 and hence there is some merit in the contention of the learned AGP that the Collector can look into the matter regarding its genuineness or otherwise. The definition of the family as given in the ceiling Act includes the husband, the wife and the minor children. Hence, the lands of the husband at the wife have to be clubbed together. On these point the case of the State is on sound footing. But not noticing the transferor before declaring the transfer as farzi, is contrary to the principles of natural justice as also to the provisions of Sec.5 (i) (iii) It is not clear as to why the transferor was not noticed before the transfers were declared to be farzi. This is a material irregularity, which has been admitted by the learned AGP also. Under the circumstances this order has to be set aside. The Board therefore resolves that the order of the learned Collector Gaya be set aside, and the proceeding remanded back to the Collector for noticing all the parties concerned and disposing of the matter in accordance with law. " 4. However, by reason of the impugned order dated 19-10-1991 as contained in Annexure 5 to the writ application, the Collector dismissed the appeal alleging inter alia therein that the Mahant of Bodh Gaya had transferred the land in violation of the trust deed of the year 1932. The revision application preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. 5. Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ application are contrary to the notice as contained in Annexure 1 thereto. 5. Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ application are contrary to the notice as contained in Annexure 1 thereto. He further submitted that in view of the fact that there has been no enquiry as to whether the lands in question in respect of which the deed of sale of the petitioner was executed belonged to Bodh Gaya Math or not, it cannot be said that the same belonged to the Math. It has been stated that there has been a land ceiling proceeding against the husband of the petitioner and in that proceeding also the lands in question have been included. The said order is contained in Annexure 2 to the writ application. It was further submitted that a final order having been passed in the year 1975 and a show cause notice has been issued, as to why he should not be declared farzidar or benamidar, the impugned order could not have been passed on a different ground. 6. Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel apprearing for the state could not dispute the aforesaid proposition pf law. He, however, submitted that the land ceiling proceeding was initiated as against the land holder and as the petitioner has purchased the land from the land holder after 22-10-1959 a proceeding under Sec.5 (i) (iii) of the said Act was maintainable. He, therefore, submitted that the Collector must be held to have exercised his jurisdiction in terms of Sec.5 (i) (iii) of the Act. 7. It is now well settled that a transaction which took place prior to 22-10-1959 cannot be a subject matter of an enquiry under the said Act except for the limited purpose that in fact the transfer in question had been made after that date It is true that the petitioner purchased the properties in question in the year 1963 and such transfer could not have been a subject matter of an enquiry under Sec.5 (i) (iii) of the said Act and for that purpose a regular proceeding should have been initiated and the sale deed could have been annulled only if the conditions precedent of the said provisions were satisfied. No finding has been arrived at by the Collector of the district or by the Member, Board of Revenue that the said deed of sale is liable to be annulled as the conditions precedent therefor are fulfilled. It is also well known that if a person has been directed to show cause only on a particular ground, the final order could not have been passed on another ground without giving a further show cause notice and giving him an opportunity of hearing. 8. As indicated hereinbefore, although Annexure-1 was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be declared as farzidar and benamidar, but the impugned orders have been passed only on the ground that the Mahanth had transferred the property in violation of 1932 Trust deed. 9. This court in several cases has taken into Consideration the history of the litigation between the Mahanth Bodh Gaya Math and the State of Bihar being CWJC Nos.10163 of 1992, 5268 of 1992 and 3394 of 1989. It is therefore, not correct to contend that all the properties standing in the name of the Mahanth Bodh Gaya Math were the subject matter of 1932 Trust deed. Further, in this case, the petitioner does not claim the lands la question as being successor of the Mahanth, Bodh Gaya. The source of allege title of the mahanth of Bodh Gaya in respect of the lands in question has also not been disclosed in the impugned orders. 10. In view of the fact that a Land Ceiling Proceeding against the husband of the petitioner had been initiated, the petitioner could not have been deprived of the said land again without reopening the aforesaid land ceiling proceeding in relation whereof an order has already been passed. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, This application is allowed and the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 3, 5 and 6 are quashed. Application allowed