JUDGEMENT V.N.Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Intervenor. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.1997/27.4.1998, passed by the District Magistrate- cum- Collector, Kaimur (Bhabhua) in Ceiling Appeal No. 1 of 1995-96, as contained in Annexure-6 to this application, whereunder he has remanded Ceiling Case No. 1 of 1988-89 initiated against the petitioner for fresh enquiry in regard to classification of lands on the appointed day i.e. 9.9.1970. Aforesaid order dated 22.12.1997/27.4.1998, Annexure-6 has also been affirmed under orders dated 5.1.1999, passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in Revision Case No. 13 of 1998, which is contained in Annexure-7 to this application. 3. By filing the present writ application, petitioner has assailed the aforesaid orders dated 22.12.1997/27.4.1998 and 5.1.1999, Annexures-6 and 7 to this application on the ground that earlier the Revenue Authorities of the District, namely, the Circle Officer, Bhabhua considered the classification of the lands in question on the appointed day under his report dated 27.2.1989, Annexure-2 and recorded a categorical finding that on 9.9.1970 the lands in question had no source of irrigation and should be classified as Class III lands. Aforesaid report of the Circle Officer, Bhabhua was not accepted by the Collector, Kaimur, Bhabhua, who under order dated 27.7.1992, Annexure-3 directed for fresh enquiry by the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector, in compliance of the orders of the Collector, examined several witnesses, namely, Damodar Rai, son of Sri Krishna Rai, resident of village Diharma Khurd, P.S. Sonhan, District Bhabhua, Ramakant Upadhyay, son of Jagdish Upadhyay, resident of village Mahuat, P.S. Sonhan, District Bhabhua, Triveni Pandey, son of Late Gayatri Pandey, resident of village Karaundi, P.S. Sonhan, District Bhabhua and concluded under order dated 28.9.1992, Annexure-5 that the lands in question were without any source of irrigation on the appointed day and petitioner did not possess any surplus land on the appointed day. 4. It appears, the State authorities challenged the order dated 28.9.1992, Annexure-5 after three years by filing Ceiling Appeal No. 1 of 1995-96 and without condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 28.9.1992, Annexure-5 the case was remanded for fresh enquiry under order dated 22.12.1997/ 27.4.1998, Annexure-6 without there being any material to suggest that the lands in question had source of irrigation on 9.9.1970. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid order was passed on the intervention of local M.L.A., Sri Ramlal Singh on whose request the enquiry was ordered, as would appear from order dated 28.9.1992, Annexure-5, otherwise, there was hardly any justification for directing fresh enquiry under order dated 22.12.1997/27.4.1998, Annexure-6, as the matter stood already concluded under order dated 28.9.1992 that the lands in question had no irrigation facility on 9.9.1970. In this connection, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Division bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Ganesh Prasad Singh and others Vrs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in A.I.R. 1978 Patna 60, whereunder this Court has held that the nature and classification of the lands has to be ascertained with reference to the appointed day and in the light of the findings already recorded in the two enquiry reports dated 27.2.1989 and 28.9.1992, as contained in Annexures-2 and 5, the Collector, Kaimur, Bhabhua ought not to have passed orders for fresh enquiry about the nature of the lands. He also submitted that learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, while considering the challenge against the order dated 22.12.1997/27.4.1998, Annexure-6 under order dated 5.1.1999, Annexure-7, did not appreciate the submission that matter stood already enquired and concluded by the Revenue Authorities, not once, but on two occasions and in such view of the matter there was hardly any necessity for having fresh enquiry on the same aspect of the matter, which stood concluded by two earlier enquiry. 5. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. He states that true it is that the nature of the lands was enquired into on two occasions, but as the local representative of the people, who represents the larger interest of the public, wanted third enquiry, the authorities obliged him and directed for third enquiry and this Court should be slow in interfering with the matter, as for the present, petitioner is not being affected. For depriving the petitioner of the lands in question, the lands will have to be acquired by issuing gazette notification and until such gazette notification is issued, petitioner is not aggrieved in any manner. 6. For depriving the petitioner of the lands in question, the lands will have to be acquired by issuing gazette notification and until such gazette notification is issued, petitioner is not aggrieved in any manner. 6. There is an interlocutory application, bearing No. 3649 of 2005 filed by Sheomurat Bind and 11 others, who claimed themselves to be the landless persons of the area where land is situate and they also wish that there should be a fresh enquiry, as has been directed under the impugned order. This Court having perused the contents of the interlocutory application, asked the counsel supporting the interlocutory application whether in the interlocutory application any statement has been made that the lands in question were provided with irrigation facility on the appointed day i.e. 9.9.1970. Learned Counsel for the Intervenors candidly accepted that on 9.9.1970 there was no irrigation facility available to irrigate the lands in question and the lands have been rightly classified as Class III lands, but as the Intervenors are landless, they are agitating the matter so as to enable the authorities to identify other surplus lands in the area, which may be given to the Intervenors after their acquisition under Section 15 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. 7. Having heard counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Intervenors and having perused the earlier enquiry reports dated 27.2.1989 and 28.9.1992, as contained in Annexures- 2 and 5, I am of the view that the authorities have comprehensively enquired into the question whether the lands in question had any irrigation facility on the appointed day i.e. 9.9.1970 not once, but on two occasions and have concluded that the lands in question had no irrigation facility were rightly classified as Class III lands and the petitioner being in possession of 26.75 acres of lands had no surplus land at her end. 8. In the circumstances, in my opinion, learned Collector, Kaimur, Bhabhua and the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna erred both in fact and law in directing third enquiry in the matter and having held so, I quash the orders dated 22.12.1997/27.4.1998 and 5.1.1999, Annexures-6 and 7 to this application. 9. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed.