JUDGMENT N. Pandey, J. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of the learned Collector, Jehanabad whereby he reopened the ceiling case under section 45-B of the Bihar Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Lands Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act'). 2. It appears the Ceiling Case No. 213/73-74 ________ 3/73-74 was started against the petitioner. Total 52.26 acres of un-irrigated land were shown in possession of the petitioner. The D.C.L.R., Jehanabad having noticed that the land holder besides three minor sons and two daughters had also his mother alive, therefore he would be entitled for 60 acres of class-IV lands. Accordingly, after alloting two units the ceiling proceeding was dropped on 7.2.76 vide order contained in Annexure-2. 3. It appears from the impugned order that at the request of the State earlier on 8.2.89, the proceeding was again reopened under section 45(B) of the Act. But since such an order was without notice and hearing to the land holder, the High Court set aside the order with a direction to the authorities to consider the matter afresh, after giving opportunity to the land holders. The impugned order was passed thereafter. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from a bare reference to the impugned order it will appear that no ground has at all been mentioned to justify the order for reopening the proceeding under section 45(B) of the Act. To substantiate his submission learned counsel placed entire order and contended unless and until specific reasons are assigned the proceeding cannot be reopened. 5. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State to justify actually what are the grounds on which the learned Collector decided to reopen the case. 6. However, learned counsel for the State tried to controvert the stand of the petitioner and stated that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner to participate at the hearing. It may be possible that certain lands were transferred by the land holder or his mother after the appointed day without obtaining permission of the learned Collector. 7. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time the Collector of the District had full jurisdiction to reopen a proceeding under section 45(B), if certain errors, irregularities were found or on discovery that the land holder had suppressed the material facts. 7. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time the Collector of the District had full jurisdiction to reopen a proceeding under section 45(B), if certain errors, irregularities were found or on discovery that the land holder had suppressed the material facts. But as in the present case before me it appears the Collector has not been able to make out any ground for reopening of the proceeding, because bare reference to the impugned order it will appear that the learned Collector was himself not sure about the grounds on which he had to reopen the proceeding. Neither the area of the land with respect to which the proceeding was previously disposed of, nor any material has been brought on record to show that the land holder had suppressed facts. Therefore in my view, there appears no dispute that the impugned order is totally vague and misplaced. 8. Accordingly, for the reasons stated I allow the writ application and quash the impugned order. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.