Judgment Aftab Alam, J. The petitioner in this application challenges an order dated 6.7.1985/29.7.1985 passed by the Additional Collector, Gaya wherein he has made a recommendation to the Collector to reopen a land ceiling proceeding which had earlier concluded in the petitioner's favour in exercise of power under Section 45-B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. In the order sheet, below the aforesaid order, the Collector has made an endorsement "as recommended" and put his signature on 15.10.1985. 2. Without going into the merits of the case, it is evident that the Collector has acted with material irregularity in the purported exercise of power under section 45-B of the Act. Section 45-B authorises the State Government or the Collector of the District to reopen a land ceiling proceeding under certain circumstances. It is beyond doubt that an order for reopening a proceeding under Section 45-B is a judicial order and it must therefore be passed in a judicial manner and after due application of mind. One of the hall marks of such an order is that it must be passed (and must appear to have been passed) on an independent application of mind by the authority competent to pass the order. Unlike an administrative order, it cannot be passed by the competent authority by simply making an endorsement "as recommended" or "as proposed" on a note prepared by some subordinate. This writ petition, therefore, is fit to succeed on this ground alone that in the eye of law there is no order passed in terms of Section 458 of the Act. 3. It may further be noted that even the reasons assigned for making the recommendation to reopen the proceedings do not stand a judicial scrutiny. From the order of the Additional Collector, it appears that he noticed that in the High School certificate the date of birth of the petitioner's middle son, Jitendra Singh was recorded as 1.2.1953; on 9.9.1970 he was, therefore, below 18 years of age. The Additional Collector further observed that in view of the High School certificate the horoscope furnished by the land holder in support of his son's age was of no value. He accordingly, observed that no extra units could be given for Jitendra Singh and the land holder was thus entitled to only two units. The Additional Collector further observed that in view of the High School certificate the horoscope furnished by the land holder in support of his son's age was of no value. He accordingly, observed that no extra units could be given for Jitendra Singh and the land holder was thus entitled to only two units. In the draft statement he was shown to hold 31.07 acres of Class I lands and thus after allowing two units, 1.07 acres would still be available with him for being declared as surplus. Hence, the recommendation to reopen the proceedings. 4. At this stage it may be noted that in his objection to the draft statement prepared under Section 10 of the Act, the and holder had claimed three units for his family, one for self and two additional units for his two sons. So far as the elder son is concerned there was no dispute about his majority on 9.9.1970. The age of he middle son was, however, disputed. It is true that in the High School Certificate his date of birth was shown as 1.2.1953. However, before the L.R.D.C., the land holder submitted, on the basis of a decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1965 SC 282, that that was not the correct date of birth of his son and according to common practice in the school records his date of' birth was slightly advanced so that he' may get some benefit in later life on the basis of age. In support of his son's age the land holder filed his horoscope as well as an affidavit. On a consideration of the materials produced before him the L.R.D.C. agreed with the submission made on behalf of the land holder and accepted his son's age as given in the horoscope and the affidavit, in preference to the High School certificate. No appeal was preferred by the State against this order and the order passed by the L.R.D.C., therefore, became final. 5. It is thus apparent that the same materials were before the L.R.D.C. and it was on the basis of those very materials that he came to a finding that Jitendra Singh had attained majority on 9.9.1970. 6. The power under Section 45-B of the Act cannot be exercised to review a simple finding of fact on the basis of the materials already on the record. 6. The power under Section 45-B of the Act cannot be exercised to review a simple finding of fact on the basis of the materials already on the record. Therefore, it appears to me that in this case not only the jurisdiction under Section 45-B was exercised in a totally wrong manner but it was also exercised for wrong reasons. 7. The impugned orders dated 6.7.1985/29.7.1985 passed by the Additional Collector as also its approval by the Collector on 15.10.1985 are, therefore, clearly untenable in law. The impugned orders are accordingly quashed. 8. In the result, this application is allowed. No order as to costs.