JUDGEMENT Navin Sinha and Jyoti Saran JJ. 1. The appellants were allowed two units in Revenue Case No. 192 of 1976-77 in an order passed by the Collector, Katihar dated 10.5.1985. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants makes a short submission that before this order came to be reconsidered by the Additional Collector reducing it to one unit in terms of what the State contends as a retrospective amendment of Section 29(2)(a)(ii) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land)Act, 1961 after ten years on 30.12.1995. No notice was issued to the appellants before depriving them of the benefits accrued under the earlier order of the Collector. Assailing the judgment under appeal learned Counsel for the appellants submits from Para 5 of the same that the finding that the appellants did not take care to appear before the Additional Collector cannot be sustained for the reason notice had first to be issued and they were to be made aware of pendency of the proceedings by reopening. If notice was not issued to them the question of their not taking care to appear did not arise. 3. We have gone through the pleadings in the writ application. Para 13 of the same is specific that no notice was given to the appellants and that they were denied opportunity to be heard before the order dated 30.12.1995, ten years after the original order dated 10.8.1985, was passed. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. We have gone through the same also. There is no denial of the fact that no fresh notices were issued to the appellants at the time of reopening of the proceedings. In fact, the respondents have not dealt with this aspect in their counter affidavit at all. In that view of the matter, the recording in the order dated 30.12.1995 that the appellants were not present is of no avail to the respondents. The order being in violation of the principles of natural justice depriving the appellants of the benefits of the earlier order dated 10.8.1985 is therefore not sustainable. In that view of the matter, we find it difficult of sustain the judgment under appeal. 5. The order being in violation of the principles of natural justice depriving the appellants of the benefits of the earlier order dated 10.8.1985 is therefore not sustainable. In that view of the matter, we find it difficult of sustain the judgment under appeal. 5. We therefore direct that the order dated 30.12.1995 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court of Additional Collector, Katihar, to issue notice to the appellants and then pass a fresh reasoned order after due opportunity and consideration of cause that may be shown by them. We wish to make it clear that we are not concerned with the issue whether their explanation may be acceptable in law or not. That is a matter to be considered by the authorities. The only question for consideration by us is propriety of the procedure adopted by the respondents in having proceeded exparte before depriving the appellants of the benefits obtained by them in an earlier adjudication. 6. The Supreme Court in AIR 1964 SC 506 (The State of Mysore V/s. K. Mancha Gowda) has held in the relevant extract at Paragraph 7 as follows: 7. ...The point is not whether his explanation would be acceptable, but whether he has been given an opportunity to give his explanation. We cannot accept the doctrine of "presumptive knowledge" or that of "purposeless enquiry", as their acceptance will be subversive of the principle of "reasonable opportunity.... 7. The impugned order dated 30.12.1995 is accordingly set aside. The appeal stands allowed. The matter is remanded to the Additional Collector who shall proceed to issue notice to the appellants and after considering the cause shown by them and an opportunity of hearing pass fresh orders in accordance with law.