ORDER S.J. Muhopadhaya, J. As both the cases arise out of a common ceiling proceeding and common order of reopening under section 45(B), they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners of both the cases are purchasers who purchased their respective lands from land holder, Shree Goshala, Bhagalpur by two sale deeds, both dated 3rd February, 1967. In a ceiling proceeding initiated against land holder, Shree Goshala, certain lands including the lands, in question, were declared surplus land of land holder, Shree Goshala. 3. Most of the purchasers, including the petitioners were not noticed under section 5(i) (iii) of the Act nor they were heard. For the said reason, some of them moved before this Court In writ petitions, including C.W.J.C. No. 6371/95 and other cases. Those cases were heard together and disposed of by common order dated 22nd January, 1996 with observation that the petitioners should approach the State Government under section 45 (B) of the Ceiling Act. 4. The State of Bihar (Hon'ble Minister Incharge of Revenue and Land Reforms Department) heard the purchaser's including the petitioners and reopened the case under section 45 (b) of the Act, vide order dated 8the April, 1997. The order of reopening reads as follows: "The proceedings of the Goshala was perused the original sale deed also bears the date 3-2-97. It will therefore be a judicious approach if this case is reopened under section 45 (B) and the case should be sent to the Collector Bhagalpur for hearing. The collector is directed to dispose of the case within a period of three months. Hence the case is reopened under section 45 (B) ". 5. It is admitted that the Collector of the district thereafter transferred the file to the Additional Collector (Ceiling), Bhagalpur who is the collector under the Act (Distinct from collector of the district). After hearing the parties, he passed the common impugned order on 3rd November, 1997and annulled all the sale deeds executed on 3rd February 1967, including the deeds in question. 6. The counsel for the petitioners relied on order of reopening passed by the State dated 8th April, 1997. According to him, when the case was transferred to the collector, Bhagalpur for hearing, i.e. the collector of the district, the Additional Collector has no jurisdiction to decide the same. 6. The counsel for the petitioners relied on order of reopening passed by the State dated 8th April, 1997. According to him, when the case was transferred to the collector, Bhagalpur for hearing, i.e. the collector of the district, the Additional Collector has no jurisdiction to decide the same. Reliance was placed on decision of this Court in the case of kesara Devi and another Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1984 B.L.J.420. 7. Further submission was that even if the order is held to be within jurisdiction, such order is to be held illegal as the sale deeds cannot be stated to have been executed to defeat the provisions of Ceiling Act. Reliance was placed on a Bench decision of this court in the case of Bachan singh Vs. S.D.O. and others, reported in 1977 B.B.C.J. 728. 8. Counsel for the state rightly pointed out that the decision of this court in kesara Devi's case (supra) was over-ruled by Full Bench of this court in the case of Mahanth Siya Ram Das and another Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1985 PLJR 101 . The Full Bench held that he score of power under the provision of section 45 (B) has been given to the state Government of the collector of the district authorised in this behalf to direct reopening and disposal afresh of any proceeding disposed of by collector under the Act. The wide ranging power is limited to the proceeding disposed of by the authorities upto the level of collector under the Act and no higher authority. The section does not mandate that the decision afresh of a proceeding disposed of by collector under the Act must be done by the State Govt. or by the authorised 'district Collector' alone. 9. Though the aforesaid question stood decided by the aforesaid Full Bench decision in the case of Mahanth siya Ram Das (supra), but in view of changed circumstances and amendment of the Act, the matter requires consideration in the light of such amendment. The State Govt. initially promulgamated an ordinance, where under the power of district Collector to reopen a case under section 45 (B) was deleted. It was followed by Act No. 8 of 1997. Since such amendment, the Distinct Collector has no jurisdiction to reopen a case under section 45 (B) of the Act. The State Govt. initially promulgamated an ordinance, where under the power of district Collector to reopen a case under section 45 (B) was deleted. It was followed by Act No. 8 of 1997. Since such amendment, the Distinct Collector has no jurisdiction to reopen a case under section 45 (B) of the Act. It is the State of Bihar who can reopen a case under the said provision, as has been done in the present case. The State of Bihar seems to have issued a guile lines in this respect vide Letter No. 1492 dated 15th May, 1989, as printed in the book, Bihar Land ceiling Manual published by Malhotra Books which is below the provision of section 45 (B). Extract of the said circular, is given below; "letter No. 11/L.R. 10-28/89-1492 RAO dated 1-5-89 SUBJECT; BIHAR BHUMI SUDHAR (ADHIKTAM SEEMA NIRADHARAN AUM ADHISHESH BHUMI ARJAN,) ADHINIAM 1962 KI DHARA 45 (B) KAY ANTARGAT SHAKTIYO KA UPYOG. 4. YUH BHI NIRNAI LIA GAYA HAI KI BIHAR BHUMI SUDHAR (ADHIKTAM SEEMA NIRADHARAN AUM ADHISHESH BHUMI ARJAN) ADHINIYAM 1962 K DHARA 41(A)YA 45(B) KAY ANTERGAT PUNARJIWTT KIYAY GAI WADO MAY SUNWAI KA KAAM JILA SAMAHARTA KAY ATIRIKTA KISI DUSRE PADADHIKARI KAY NYAYALAYA MAY NAHI KIA JAIGA." By the aforesaid circular, power has been delegated for determination of case on reopening under section 45 (B) afresh to the collector of the district. It has been specifically directed that except the District collector no other officer is to hear such case on reopening. It appears that aforesaid guidelines being binding on the authorities, the State of Bihar vide order dated 8th April, 1997 directed the collector of the district Bhagalpur to hear and dispose of the case on such reopening. 10. In view of amendment made in the provision of section 45 (B); specific guidelines issued on 1st May, 1989 in this respect; and the order of state Government dated 8th April, 1997, the law laid down by Full Bench in the case of Mahanth Siya Ram Das and another (supra), cannot be made applicable in the present case, on changed circumstances. 11. Accordingly, I hold that the common impugned order dated 3rd November, 1997 passed by the Additional collector (Ceiling), Bhagalpur is without jurisdiction and thereby illegal. The same is, accordingly, set aside. 12. 11. Accordingly, I hold that the common impugned order dated 3rd November, 1997 passed by the Additional collector (Ceiling), Bhagalpur is without jurisdiction and thereby illegal. The same is, accordingly, set aside. 12. In view of aforesaid decision, it is not necessary to decide other question raised on behalf, of the petitioners, though on principle I accept that mere execution to several sale deeds on a day or under-valuation cannot be a factor to annul a transfer under section 5(i) (iii) of the ceiling Act as held by this court in the case of Bachan singh (supra). 13. In the result, the writ petitions succeed and the cases stand remitted to the collector of the district, Bhagalpur for decision afresh, in accordance with law, after notice and hearing the parties. 14. Till such decision is given the land, in question, be not distributed in favour of anyone or other parties. 15. Both the writ petitions are allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Petitions allowed.