JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 11.11.1995 passed by the Collector, Purnea, by which he has directed that the temple should be allotted one unit equivalent to 18.23 acres and the remaining 27.63 acres of land was directed to be acquired setting aside the notification No. 2889 dated 24.4.1991, by which the temple was allotted two units. The petitioners also seek quashing of the Gazette Notification No. 2999 dated 11.11.1995 (Annexure-2) issued by the Collector, Purnea under Section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 and further seek consequential direction upon the respondents to restore two units of land as allotted to the petitioners by order dated 18.3.1991 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Purnea. 3. The facts of the case are not in dispute that by a registered deed of endowment executed in 1933, one Rama Nand Sinha established private trust and installed two deities, namely, Maa Kali Ji and Sri Kuldevta Ji respectively by giving equal half share of the properties including lands dedicated to the deities by way of the said endowment and subsequently in the year 1938, the mother of Late Rama Nand Sinha, namely, Late Rani Kalawati Devi also dedicated the properties of her share to the said deities installed vide private trusts in two separate temples for their separate maintenance and rites and rituals. The said deities are petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition. Petitioner No.3 is the shebait of both the deities being successor-in-interest of Late Rama Nand Sinha. 4. A ceiling case, being Ceiling Case No. 113 of 1973-74, was initiated against the petitioners who claimed two units. By order dated 18.3.1991, which was passed upon remand by the Appellate Authority, the D.C.L.R. allowed the case of the petitioner holding that the two deities, namely, Sri Mata Kali Ji and Kuldevta Ji have separate existence and Puja Path maintenance and other rituals are also separate and allotted one separate unit each to the deities, namely, two units in all and after allowing the land opted by the petitioners declared 19.5 1/2 acres of land of the petitioner as surplus land. The draft of the final notification under Section 15(1) of the Act was published by Gazette Notification No.2889 dated 29.4.1991. The draft of the final notification under Section 15(1) of the Act was published by Gazette Notification No.2889 dated 29.4.1991. No appeal or revision was filed by the State-respondents against the said order which acquired finality. 5. Thereafter, in the year 1995, the impugned order dated 11.11.1995 was passed by the Collector, by which he held that by the Bihar Ordinance No. 20 of 1995, Section 29(2)(a)(ii) has been deleted and will be deemed to have been deleted with effect from 9.9.1970 itself and thus after the said Ordinance, there was no question of grant of any exemption to the deities and accordingly he directed that the temple in question is entitled for one unit equivalent to 18.23 acres and after giving the same to it, the remaining land, i.e., 27.63 acres was directed to be acquired. The draft publication under Section 15 of the Act was published in the District Gazette as notification No.2999 dated 11.11.1995. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come up before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners raises several pleas in support of his stand. At the outset, it is submitted by him that no notice was issued by the Collector before passing the impugned order dated 11.11.1995 and thus the same is required to be quashed on this ground alone. The said fact has not been denied by the State by filing any counter affidavit in the matter. 7. The second leg of submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that under the very Ordinance, 1995, which came into force with effect from 8.9.1995, the power of the Collector under Sections 37 and 45B of the Act was taken away. 8. It is urged that under Section 45B of the Act, earlier the Collector may, at any time, call for and examine any record of any proceeding disposed of by the Collector under the Act and thereafter direct the same to be reopened and disposed of afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The said power having been taken away, it was not open to the Collector to have passed an order dated 11.11.1995 which, in effect, is an attempt to reopen a proceeding which stood closed and has become final. 9. The said power having been taken away, it was not open to the Collector to have passed an order dated 11.11.1995 which, in effect, is an attempt to reopen a proceeding which stood closed and has become final. 9. The third leg of submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that even if Section 29(2)(a)(ii) of the Act has been deleted by 1995 Ordinance, the same can have no application to the case of the petitioners, as the said provision applied only to exemption from the operation of Section 5 of the Ceiling Act to any religious institution of a public nature, whereas the petitioners are not a trust or institution of a public nature, rather they have been created by a private trust. 10. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel that as a matter of fact, the D.C.L.R. or any authority of the State has not granted any exemption to the petitioners under the provisions of Section 29(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, rather on the well established proposition of law that each of the deities being a separate legal person would be entitled to one unit of land under the provisions of the Ceiling Act and thus two units have been allotted to the two petitioner-deities. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order dated 11.11.1995 suffers from non-application of mind. 11. Although on the last occasion, i.e., 30.4.2015 when the matter was heard, no one had come forward on behalf of the State to argue the same but today, Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, J.C. to G.P. No. 3 appears and states that he is unable to make any submission in the matter. 12. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on the record, this Court is inclined to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners on all the points. 13. The impugned order dated 11.11.1995 having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the statement regarding no notice being issued to the petitioners and no opportunity of hearing being provided to them and even the petitioners having been denied opportunity for filing any objection is alone a sufficient ground to quash the impugned order dated 11.11.1995. 13. The impugned order dated 11.11.1995 having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the statement regarding no notice being issued to the petitioners and no opportunity of hearing being provided to them and even the petitioners having been denied opportunity for filing any objection is alone a sufficient ground to quash the impugned order dated 11.11.1995. The Collector of the District appears to have completely failed in observing even the basic principles of fairness when on his own he took up the matter and set aside the final order in the ceiling case. 14. Further, the application of Section 29(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, which has been deleted by the Ordinance also suffers from complete lack of application of mind. The said provision only related to religious institution of a public nature, whereas the case of the petitioners is that the endownment has been made by way of a private trust and thus the petitioners were neither entitled to any exemption under Section 29(2)(a)(ii) of the Act nor were ever granted any such exemption under the provisions of Section 5 of the Ceiling Act by virtue of Section 29(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. The case of the petitioners was that each of the two deities being a separate legal person, they would be entitled to their allotment of separate units under the provisions of the Ceiling Act which proposition has been established in a catena of decisions of this Court. Thus, the order of the D.C.L.R. granting one unit each to the petitioners was unassailable and the Collector of the District while reopening and deciding the matter by his order dated 11.11.1995 under Section 45B of the Act has not even properly considered all aspects of the matter. 15. Lastly, it has to be held that the order of the Collector also suffers from lack of jurisdiction. By the very Ordinance, by which Section 29(2)(a)(ii) of the Act was deleted, the power of the Collector to resolve the dispute under Section 37 of the Act or to reopen the proceedings under Section 45B of the Act were both taken away and the power for reopening remained vested only in the State Government under the provisions of Section 45B of the Act. 16. 16. In the said circumstances, the Collector could not have reopened the earlier proceedings even if Section 29(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, which has been deleted by an Ordinance, had become inapplicable. Thus, the impugned order is not only without jurisdiction but bad on the merits of the matter and also for the violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order dated 11.11.1995 of the Collector of the District, Purnea cannot stand and it is according quashed. The impugned District Gazette Notification No.2999 dated 11.11.1995 (Annexure-2) being consequential in nature is also quashed. 17. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed.