Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. - This application is directed against a notice dated 28-10-1992 issued by the respondent No.2 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to show cause as to why the proceeding shall not be reopened in terms of Sec.45-B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. 2. Bereft of all unnecessary details the fact of the matter is as follows : -Admittedly a Land Ceiling Proceeding was initiated as against the petitioners father Ram Briksh Pandit being Land Ceiling case no.3 of 1973-74. A Ceiling case No 53 of 1973-74 was started against the petitioners mother Lakshmi Devi and another land Ceiling case No.59 of 1973/74 was initiated against the petitioner and his other family members. 3. All the aforementioned cases were later on amalgamated and ceiling proceeding No.3 of 1973/74 was continued. In the said proceeding three units were allotted by the Additional Collector by his order dated 10-11-1976 and appeal was preferred against the said order which was dismissed. A revision petition was thereafter preferred and Additional member Board of Revenue by his order dated 10-12-1977 allowed the same and remitted the matter back to the Collector for fresh consideration of the entire matter. Upon remand of the aforementioned proceeding, by an order dated 18-11-1982 the Additional Collector allotted for units. In the said order, it was held that Vijay Kumar Pandit was major on the appointed day i. e.9-9-1970. The said order is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. 4. The petitioner filed objections to the said order in terms of Sec.10 (3) of the Act. By an order dated 25-1-1983 six units were allotted to the family of the land holder including the petitioner and lands measuring about 28.88 acres of land were declared surplus, in view of the fact that 32.98 acres of land had already been surrendered. The said proceedings were dropped. 5. On or. about 17-12-1987 the Collector of the Sitamarhi district directed reopening of the proceeding on two specific grounds, namely, that there was no solid proof of separation of the wife of the land holder and for her being alive and that the classification of land does not appear to be , proper. 6. A show-cause notice was issued under the signature of respondent no.3 which is contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application. 6. A show-cause notice was issued under the signature of respondent no.3 which is contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application. The petitioner filed the show cause, the same was accepted by the additional Collector which was approved by the respondent No.2 on 8-7-1988. Thereafter the impugned notice dated 28-10-1982 has been issued. 7. Mr. Y. V. Giri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. The learned counsel submitted that the matter relating to allotment of his share in favour of Vijay Kumar Pandit having already been determined by the Additional Collector in terms of his order dated 18-11-1982 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application as also in view of the fact that on/or earlier occasion also the proceeding was sought to be reopened, the impugned notice must be held to be illegal. 8. The learned counsel in support of his contention has placed strong reliance upon a decision of this court in Surender Nath Ghosh V/s. the State of Bihar, 1983 BLJ 18. This Bench in Mrityunjay Narayan Mishra and others V/s. the State of bihar in CWJC No.8843 of 1991 disposed of on 23-2-1993 and other analogous cases upon taking into consideration various decisions held as follows ; - "from the conspectus of the decisions referred to hereinbefore, it is evident that Sec.45-B does not confer upon any arbitrary power upon the Collector of the District to reopen a proceeding on his own sweet will. All such orders must be informed by reasons. A Land Ceiling proceeding can be reopened only on the availability of the new material or if it is found that the collector under the said Act had passed such orders in violation of the provisions of law both substantive and procedural which was resulted on real prejudice to the State, Landholder of any third party. However, I may mention that in a fiven case it may also be permissible for the Collector of the District or the State of Bihar to direct reopening of the proceeding when a fraud has been practised upon the Collector or any other party or when it is found that the order has been passed on extraneous considerations. However, I may mention that in a fiven case it may also be permissible for the Collector of the District or the State of Bihar to direct reopening of the proceeding when a fraud has been practised upon the Collector or any other party or when it is found that the order has been passed on extraneous considerations. The power under Sec.45-B of the said Act, has to be exercised sparingly and the same cannot be exercised for the purpose of making a roving or fishing enquiry, While however passing such order, the object and purport of the Act should be the upper most consideration, in the mind of the Collector of district or the State. " 9. In this case, the earlier notice purported to be under Sec.45-B of the Act was issued by the Additional Collector, upon a direction of the collector of the District. The said notice was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The matter was enquired into by the Additional Collector himself as is evident from Annexure-3 to the writ application. 10. In any event, it is evident that in the notice as contained in annexure-2 to the writ application the question of minority was not raised. 11. From a perusal of the notice dated 28-10-1992 as contained in annexure-4 to the writ application, it appears that it has specifically been contended therein that the name of Sri Bijay Kumar Pandit was not found in the deed of partition which was effected in the year 1955 (although according to the petitioner Vinay Kumar Pandit was born in 1949 and further in the deed of gift dated 29-9-1962 executed by bis mother and grandmother, his age was stated to be only 8 years as on that date. 12. It has not been pointed out by Mr. Giri that the aforementioned materials had been taken into consideration by the Additional Collector while passing the order dated 18-11-1982 as contained in Annexure-1 to tbe writ application as also Annexure-3 thereto. 13. It is, therefore, evident that the impugned notice has been issued on fresh materials. The petitioner in this writ application has sought to give an explanation with regard to the aforementioned discrepancies in Paragraph 16 of the writ application. 13. It is, therefore, evident that the impugned notice has been issued on fresh materials. The petitioner in this writ application has sought to give an explanation with regard to the aforementioned discrepancies in Paragraph 16 of the writ application. As merely a notice has been issued as against the petitioner, in our opinion it is not for this court to consider the said explanation in exercise of our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage. 14. This aspect of the matter has been considered by us in Jitendra kumar Narain Singh V/s. The State of Bihar in CWJC No.10046 of 1992 disposed of on 16-12-1992 wherein this, court relying upon a decision of this court in Express News Papers (P) Ltd. V/s. The Workers and others reported in 1963 SC 569 and State of U. P. V/s. Brahm Datt Sharma, 1987 SC 943 has held that normally this court should allow the tribunal to determine the matter relating to the jurisdictional facts at the first instance. As the petitioner has merely been given notice on the basis of " the new materials/new information collected by the Collector of the Districts, in my opinion, no case for interferenee with the impugned notice his been made out at this stage. This application is, therefore, dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Application dismissed.