Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. -this application is directed against an order dated 18-3-1991 passed by the respondent No.2 and as contained in Annexure 1/a to the writ application as also the notification issued under Section 15 (1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act)and as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioner is widow of one Raghunath Singh. He died in the year 1976 leaving behind the petitioner, four sons namely. Shambhu narain Singh, Awadh Narain Sing, Jai Narain Singh and Brajkishore singh and a married daughter viz. Smt. Suraj Devi. A proceeding was initiated as against the aforementioned Raghunath singh on 3-4-1974. The authorities under the said Act called for a report from the Anchal Adhikari Raxual as also authorities of the East Champaran district. On 19-6-1979 the Additional Collector received a fresh report from Anchal Adhikari of Raxual. On or about 24-7-1979 he directed that notices be issued to the landholder. On 28-3-1980 the registered notice was received unserved as the landholder was reported to be dead. However, on 7-4-1990 an order was passed as against the original landholder. On 9-4-1980 a draft statement WPS directed to be prepared wherein it was started that the landholder was entitled to one and l/10th units and thus was entitled 33.3 acress of lands of Class IV lands and thereby 14 35 decimals were declared to be surplus lands. A copy of the said draft statement was directed to be sent to the landholder. On 28-2-1981 the service report was received wherein the landholder was shown as dead. The Respondent No.2 thereafter by an order dated 2-3-1981 directed that the matter should be proceeded with against the petitioner. 4. By the impugned order dated 18-3-1981 the respondent No.2 held that the petitioner is in possession of 42.53 acres of Class IV lands and by mistake in the order sheet dated 3-9-1980, 47.35 acres of land has been mentioned. Thus 13.69 acres of Class IV lands were directed to be declared as surplus. 5. By reason of the said order dated 18-3-1981 a correction in the draft publication was directed to be made. Thereafter the respondent no.2 invited objection under Sec.10 (2) of the said Act. Thus 13.69 acres of Class IV lands were directed to be declared as surplus. 5. By reason of the said order dated 18-3-1981 a correction in the draft publication was directed to be made. Thereafter the respondent no.2 invited objection under Sec.10 (2) of the said Act. The said objection was filed for the first time on 26-3-1982. According to the petitioner despite the same the impugned notification dated 18-9-1982 which is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application had been issued. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised two contentions in support of this application. The learned counsel firstly submitted that in view of the fact that the original landholder died in the year 1976, the petitioner could not have been substituted in his place. According to the learned counsel, there is no provision for substituting the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased landholder under the said act or the rules framed thereunder and thus the purported direction of the respondent No.2 in terms whereof a proceeding had been continued as against the petitioner must be held to be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 7. The learned counsel in support of this contention has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this court in Smt. Savitri Devi Drolia and others V/s. State of Bihar, 1977 BBCJ 455 . 8. It was next contended that in any event after substitution of the petitioner in place of her deceased husband, no notification under Section 10 of the Act could have been issued in view of the fact that the said proceedings abated in terms of Sec.328 of the said Act, which was inserted by reason of Act No.55 of 1982 with effect from 9-4-1981. 9. Mr. B. P. Verma, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, has drawn my attention to the fact that by reason of Ordinance No.66/81 and the subsequent ordinances which culminated in enactment of Act No.55 of 1982, Sec.45-C was inserted in the said Act, in terms whereby the authorities under the said Act became empowered to direct substitution of the names of the legal representatives cf a deceased party either on an application made in this behalf or on his own motion. It has been pointed out that the said provision which was inserted by act No.55 of 1982 was given a retrospective effect and retroactive operation in so far as it was declared therein that the said provisions would always be deemed to have been so inserted. 10. Section 45-C of the said Act reads thus : -"substitution of legal representative in case of death of landholder.-If the landholder dies during the pendency of a proceeding, appeal or revision under this Act, the Collector or the appropriate authority, as the case may be, shall on an application made in this behalf or on his own motion substitute the name of the legal representatives in the manner prescribed in the rules, and the proceeding, appeal or revision shall thereon continue to proceed against the substituted, landholder or holders. " 11. In view of the fact that the aforementioned Sec.45 (C) has been given retrospective effect and retroactive operation, there cannot be any doubt that the respondent No.2 had the requisite jurisdiction to direct substitution of heirs and legal representatives of the original landholder. In view of the fact that a power has been conferred upon the authorities under the said Act to direct substitution of the heirs and legal representative of the deceased landholder by reason of the aforementioned act No.55/82 with retrospective effect, the Division Bench decision of this court in Smt. Savitris case (supra) is not longer a good law. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner most, therefore neceisarily be rejected. 12. So far as tht second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, however, the same has substance. 13. By reason of Act No.55 of 1982, Sections 32-A and 32-B were inserted. It is now well known by reason of various decision of this court that in terms of the aforementioned provisions any proceeding pending as on 9-4-1981 stood abated and such a proceeding was start afresh from the stage of Sec.10 of the said Act. Reference in this connection may be made to Chandrajot Kuer V/s. State of Bihar, 1983 BBCJ 197 , a Full Bench decision of this court in harendra Pd. Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 1984 PLJR 908 and recent decisions by a Division Bench of which I was a member in CWJC No.4176 of 1992 and CWJC No.8201 of 1992 disposed of on 21-1-1993. 14. Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 1984 PLJR 908 and recent decisions by a Division Bench of which I was a member in CWJC No.4176 of 1992 and CWJC No.8201 of 1992 disposed of on 21-1-1993. 14. In view of the fact that the notification under Sec.11 (1) of the said Act was issued on 7-4-1982 without starting a proceeding from the stage of Sec.10 of the said Act, the impugned order as also the notification as contained in Annexure-1/a and Annexure-2 cannot be sustained. 15. The petitioner and her sons and daughter may now appear before the respondent No.2 within four weeks from today together with a copy of this order and the respondent No.2 shall start a proceeding afresh from the stage of Sectors 10 of the said Act. 16. This application is, thus allowed and the notification as contained in Annexures 1/a and Annexure-2 to the writ application are set aside. However, in the fact and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.