ORDER Aftab Alam, J The petitioner in this application challenges an order dated 25.10.1993, passed by the Collector, Rohtas (Sasaram) in Celling Case No. 2/1993, reopening a land Celling proceeding in purported exercise of power under section 45B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of surplus Land) Act. A land ceiling proceeding being Ceiling Case No. 761/1974-75 was earlier initiated against one Shyam Bihari Rai (now deceased). The present petitioner was one of the two wives of the aforesaid land holder. The earlier proceeding was dropped by order dated 19.9.1970 passed by the Addl. Collector, Rohtas holding that the land holder did not have any land in excess of the ceiling area. A copy of this order at Annexure-1. From this order, it appears that the Addl. Collector took into consideration the verification report submitted by the Acnhal Adhikari stating that the land holder had two wiew Umaravati (the present petitioner) and Kalawati. The report fw1her disclosed that Umravati lived separately from her husband. The report also Stated that the land holder's sister had ligted certain lands from her share to Umaravati and her daughter Manju and the transferred lands were held by the petitioner and were also mutated in the names of her daughter and herself and rent receipts were being separately issued in respect of those lands On the basis of the verification report, the Addl. Collector accepted the land holder's claim that the lands held separately by the present petitioner were to be excluded from the land ceiling case initiated against him and thereupon there was no was no excess land in his possession It is to be noted that the aforesaid facts had come to light in the report of the Anchal Adhikari and the Addi. Collector had taken a certain view as Stated above on the basis of the materials on the report of the case. It appears that the successor in the office of the Addl. Collector was of the opinion that the order dated 19.9.1974 dropping the land ceiling case against the land holder, was based on an erroneous leval view and view and accordingly he reopened the proceeding by order dated 15.4.76. Following this by order dated 12.7.76, 14. 91 acts of land were declared surplus with the land holders. Collector was of the opinion that the order dated 19.9.1974 dropping the land ceiling case against the land holder, was based on an erroneous leval view and view and accordingly he reopened the proceeding by order dated 15.4.76. Following this by order dated 12.7.76, 14. 91 acts of land were declared surplus with the land holders. In the meantime the original land holder being dead, the present petitioner and other heirs of the land holder challenged the order reopening the proceeding by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, Patna. The appeal was allowed by order dated 9.9.76 (copy at Annexure 2) wherein was held that the action of the successor Addl. Collector in reopening the proceeding, dropped by his predecessor was without jurisdiction. The order dated 12.7.76 was accordingly set aside. Thereafter the proceeding was sought to be reopened by order dated 1.2.77 passed by Collector of the district in terms or section 45B of the Act, as this order was passed without issuing any notice to the concerned persons. It was successfully challenged by the petitioner before this Court in CWJC No. 2571/1979. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by a Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 6.1.1984 (copy at Annexure 3). By this order, this Court quashed the order dated 4.2.77 on the ground that it was passed without issuing any notice to the concerned persons. Then, it appears, on 3.2.93 a petition was filed by the State Counsel before the Collector of the district making a prayer for reopening the proceeding in terms of section 45B of the Act. Notices were this time issued to the concerned persons and finally the impugned order was passed on the basis of that petition In the impugned order, the learned Collector after recapitulating the earlier developments in the proceeding (as briefly described above) issued directions for the reopening of the proceeding. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is manifast that the on y ground on which the proceeding has been directed to be reopened is that the order dropping the proceeding and holding that the land holder did not have lands in excess of the ceiling area had not been passed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is manifast that the on y ground on which the proceeding has been directed to be reopened is that the order dropping the proceeding and holding that the land holder did not have lands in excess of the ceiling area had not been passed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is significant to note that the order does not profess that any new material had couse to light or that the earlier order was passed on the basis of any misrepresentation or suppression of any relevant fact or was induced by any fraudulent means. The question which, therefore, arises is whether the power under section 45B of the Act can be exercised to correct an error on a reconsideration of the materials which had earlier been considered? The answer must be given in the negative as this point has already been settled (against the stand taken by the State in this case) by a full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Praveen Shankar Singh and others v. State of Bihar and others. 1989 BLJ 450 . In para 17 of this judgment the law on this point was laid down in the following terms: "17 Now the question as to whether the authority can decide to reopen the proceeding on a re-consideration of the materials which had earlier been considered. In my view, it is not permissible to do so and this interpretation of the section would be consistent with the age old principles mentioned above and would be reasonable, just and consistent with fair play. It will save not only the laid holder but also the State from a perpetual thereat of uncertainty and consequent harassment for, it is a power which the land holder may also invite to be exercised in his favor and not only once but repeatedly. If the section is construed in its widest amplitude implying unbridled and unlimited power, the Collector when asked by an aggrieved land holder to exercise the same, cannot, without applying his mind, refuse to entertain the prayer as that would amount to abdication of power. If the section is construed in its widest amplitude implying unbridled and unlimited power, the Collector when asked by an aggrieved land holder to exercise the same, cannot, without applying his mind, refuse to entertain the prayer as that would amount to abdication of power. I therefore, hold that if the materials of the records of a case are taken into consideration by the authorities concerned and a conclusion is reached which becomes final (on appeal and revision or in absence there of), its finality has to be respected and the proceeding cannot be reopened for coming to a second thought. If, however, any material or matter has been omitted from consideration which may be so substantial as to lead to a different conclusion, the power under the acction may be exercised. As the observation of Mr. Justice B. P. Jha in para 7 of the judgment in Yamuna Rai V. The State of Bihar (supra) are consistent with this view, I hold that the case was correctly decided." It is, thus apparent to me that learned Collector was in error in reopening the proceeding on the only ground that the earlier order had not been passed in accordance with the provision of the Act. Mr. H. P. Singh, learned S.C. (Ceiling) however, defended that impugned order on the basis of two division Bench decisions pronounced recently. These are reported in (1) 1993 (2) PLJR 205 and (ii) 1923(2) PLJR 322. In my opinion, the two decisions relied upon Mr. Singh would be of no avail as they were rendered in cases arising from completely is similar facts and circumstances. In the case of sheikh samiur Rahman v. State. 1993 (2) PLJR 322, this Court had come to a finding that the earlier order dropping the proceeding had been obtained by practicing a fraud upon the Court in as much as the officers of the State had deliberately excluded a huge tract of land from the land ceiling proceeding. Similarly, In the case of Rupchand Baid v. State of Bihar 1993 (2)PLJR 205, the same division Bench held the earlier order had been passed without following the mandatory provision of rule 8 of the Bihar Land Ceiling Rules. 1963 and the proceeding had been dropped without waiting for the report of the Anchal Adhikari which had earlier been called for. 1963 and the proceeding had been dropped without waiting for the report of the Anchal Adhikari which had earlier been called for. Under those circumstances, it was held that the order of reopening of the proceeding did not suffer from any infirmity. The material circumstances in the two decisions relied upon by Mr. Singh are not present in this case and the facts of this case are fully covered by the observations made in the fully Bench decision in Praveen Shankar Singh's case (supra). For the reasons Stated above, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is unsustainable in law. It is accordingly set aside. In the result, this application is allowed, however, without any order as to casts Application allowed.