Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Bhudan Yagna Committee and the learned counsel for the State. 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in annexure-5 whereby a certificate granted under section 14 of Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act) was cancelled by the Chairman and recommendation to the Revenue Officer was made for ejectment of the petitioner as per the provision of Sections 21 and 22 of the Act. 2. There is no dispute that the petitioner was previously granted a certificate under section 14 of the Act by the Bhoodan Yagna Committee with respect to the land in question and, accordingly, he was put in possession later an allegation was made that petitioner on getting money had transferred and/or exchanged certain portion of the land in favour of different persons and reports were also submitted to that effect. Since it was found that such transfer or delivery of possession of land in favour of different persons by the petitioner, was illegal and also in contravention of the provisions of settlement, the Chairman of the Committee by the impugned order, cancelled the certificate and recommended for ejectment under section 21 of the Act. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner centended that the impugned order of the Chairman is quite illegal as no notice was ever given before the cancellation of the certificate. He further contended that copy of the reports annexed with the counter affidavit have no relevancy, since such reports were submitted either in a proceeding under section 144 or 145 of the Act, but not in connection with the present proceeding. 4. Learned Counsel for the Bhoodan Yagan Committee on the other hand placed reliance on the reports of the Amin dated 12.12.1966 and the Secretary of the Committee to show that during enquiry it was found that petitioner had transferred certain lands to different persons after getting money. In my view, since the impugned order contained in annexure 5 which was already passed on 17.1.1996 the report of the Amin as submitted on 12.12.1996, if any, would have no relevancy so far as it was with regard to the cancellation of the certificate. Because the Chairman had already cancelled the certificate even before submission of such report. In my view, since the impugned order contained in annexure 5 which was already passed on 17.1.1996 the report of the Amin as submitted on 12.12.1996, if any, would have no relevancy so far as it was with regard to the cancellation of the certificate. Because the Chairman had already cancelled the certificate even before submission of such report. No other specific material was brought before me to show that order of the Chairman regarding cancellation of certificate was issued after extending Opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts stated above, I quash that part of the order of the Chairman whereby the certificate of the petitioner was cancelled. 5. But having regard to the allegation that petitioner had violated certain terms and conditions of the settlement, the recommenation of the Chairman before the Revenue Officer to start a proceeding for ejectment would remains as it is. It has been noticed that on receipt of the said order the Anchal Adhikari, Manjhi, (Revenue Officer) had already issued noticed to the petitioner to show cause as to why appropriate order for ejectment be not passed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from the materials annexed with the counter affidavit it is apprehended that Anchal Adhikari may pass order of ejectment. According to him, such reports may not be relevant for the purpose of determination of the certificate and ejectment u/s 21 of the Act unless and until proper enquiry is conducted in presence of the petitioner. True it is, from the counter affidavit and different annxeures attached therewith it appears certain inquiry was conducted by the different authorities. But, in my view, such enquiry alone may not be enough to determine the certificate and ejectment. Because from a bare reference to the provision of section 21 of the Act it would appear that it would be essential by the Revenue Officer to hold enquiry after extending proper opportunity to the persons concerned. Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Anchal Adhikari to hold enquiry in presence of the petitioner and his witnesses, if any, to find out whether allegations against the petitioner about transfer or exchange of the land was justified. Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Anchal Adhikari to hold enquiry in presence of the petitioner and his witnesses, if any, to find out whether allegations against the petitioner about transfer or exchange of the land was justified. It goes without saying if on enquiry and determination in terms of the provisions under sections 21 and 22 of the Act, it is found that the petitioner had contravened the condition of settlement and grant of certificate, necessary order has to be passed for ejectment. But, if otherwise it is found that the allegations are not substantiated, the proceeding in question has to be dropped. Since the present order has been passed in presence of the learned counsel for both the 'parties, the petitioner is directed to produce a certified copy, of this order before the Anchal Adhikari within four weeks from today, so that he can proceed with this direction without any further delay. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition, is thus, disposed of.