Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against the notice issued on 21-12-1982 by Respondent No.2 in Form L. G.5 and L. G 6 as contained in Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ application whereby the petitioner has been directed to file his objections in respect of draft published in terms under Sec.12 (B) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred for the sake of brevity as the said Act ). In view of the point involved in the case, it is not necessary to notice the fact of the matter in details. 2. The petitioner, admittedly is a land holder. A proceeding under the said Act was initiated against him being Ceiling Case No 298 of 1975-76. On 15-2-1982 a purported notification under Sec.11 (1) of the said Act was issued. The said Notification is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application. 3. The Deputy Secretary of the Department of Revenue and Land reforms by an order dated 31-7-1982 communicated on 2-9-1982 directed re-opening of the proceeding in terms of Sec.32 (B) of the said Act on the ground that the final publication under Sec.11 (1) thereof has been made after 9-4-1981. In terms of the aforementioned direction, respondent No.2 initiated a fresh proceeding and issued the impugned notice in this writ application. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the fact that the final publication under Sec.11 (1) of the said Act has been made as far back as on 15-2-1982, the said proceeding could not have been directed to be re-opened. 5. The learned counsel in support of his contention has relied upon a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Praveen Shanker Singh and others V/s. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1987 B. L. J. , 248 and an unreported decision of this Court in Smt. Sudha Devi V/s. State of Bihar in CWJC no.4679 of 1982 disposed of on 21-5-1982. 6. It is not disputed that the provision of Sec.32 (A) and 32 (B)of the said Act were inserted for the first time by promulgation of an ordinance by the Governor Bihar dated 9-4-1981 being Ordinance No 182 of 1981. 6. It is not disputed that the provision of Sec.32 (A) and 32 (B)of the said Act were inserted for the first time by promulgation of an ordinance by the Governor Bihar dated 9-4-1981 being Ordinance No 182 of 1981. It was followed by successive Ordinances culminating in the enactment of Act No.52/1982 which was given retrospective operation from 9-4-1981. 7. It is, therefore, evident that in terms of Sec.32 (B) of the said act, all the proceedings abated except in a case where final publication under Sec.11 (1) of the Act has already been made before promulgation of the aforementioned Ordinance. In terms of the aforementioned provision, the proceedings have to be disposed of afresh from the stage of Sec.10 of the Act, clearly, therefore, no final publication under Sec.11 (1) of the said Act could have been made on 15-2-1982. 8. In Smt Sudha Devis case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, however, lost sight of the factum of promulgation of the Ordinance and held that as final publication under Sec.11 (1) of the said Act had been made on 27-4-1982, the provisions of Sec.32 (B) of the Act were not attracted in that case. 9. In view of the fact that in that case the attention of the Bench was not drawn to the fact that Ordinance No.182 of 1981 came into force with effect from 9-4-1981 and further in view of the fact that the Bench did not take into consideration the fact that Sec.32 (B) of the said Act was given a retrospective effect with effect from 9-4-1981, the said decision must be held to have been rendered per incurium and, thus it is not a binding preceding. This aspect of the matter has already been considered by a Full bench of this Court in Harendra Prasad Singh V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 1984 PLJR 908 , wherein it was held as follows t "scale argument was that the publication having been made, it must nevertheless be allowed to hold the field till its expressly set aside by a competent authority by way of appeal, revision, review or references. It is not easy to subscribe to this somewhat hypertechnical submission. Patently a publication under the unamended Sec.11 (1) of the Ceiling Act long after the 9th of April, 1981, suffer from a triple grievous informity. " 10. It is not easy to subscribe to this somewhat hypertechnical submission. Patently a publication under the unamended Sec.11 (1) of the Ceiling Act long after the 9th of April, 1981, suffer from a triple grievous informity. " 10. The Full Bench further proceeded to hold as follows: "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 the 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 need, the answer to the three distinct questions automatically falls into its place. " It is accordingly held as under : (i) under the mandatory provision of Sec.32-B the Revenue authorities are on liged to dispose of afresh of opening proceedings except those in which final proceeding under sub-section (1) of Sec.11 of the Ceiling Act has already been made prior to the 9th April, 1981, being the date of the commencement of the un-amended Act. (ii) after the enforcement of the unamended Act on 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 proceeding afresh and the final publication by way of notification under Sec.11 (1)of the old unamended Act after the 9th of April, 1981 would be solely without jurisdiction and, therefore, non est. " 11. The Full Bench in the light of its findings aforementioned quashed a final publication made under Sec.11 (1) of the Act on 31st May, 1982. 12. In this view of the matter, the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 13. The decision of the Full Bench in Praveen Shanker Singh and others v. State of Bihar, reported in 1967 PLJR 15 is, misplaced. In that decision this Court was considering the effect of Sec.45 (B) of the Act which has nothing to do with Sec.32 (B) thereof. 14. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this application and accordingly it is dismissed. 15. In that decision this Court was considering the effect of Sec.45 (B) of the Act which has nothing to do with Sec.32 (B) thereof. 14. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this application and accordingly it is dismissed. 15. It would be open to the petitioner to raise all their contentions on merits in his objection under Sec.13 of the Act. 16. This application is, thus dismissed with the aforementioned observations. Application dismissed.