IMPORTANT POINT
No persona/ law can be taken into consideration for determination of ceiling surplus with the land holder under Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. No additional unit is given to an adult son of the land holder whether governed by Mitakshara Hindu Law or governed by Mohammadan Law and thus the earlier view of Patna High Court in 1982 BBCJ 208 (FB) is correct.

JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.-This appeal by the State of Bihar raises the question whether major sons of a family governed by Mohammedan law are entitled to a separate unit while determining the ceiling area of a ceiling surplus holder ? In the ceiling fixation case of a land holder Aftab Ahmed, the Member, Board of Revenue came to the conclusion that an adult son of a land holder governed by Mohammedan law would be entitled to a separate unit since an adult son of a land holder governed by. the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law is entitled to the same. The State of Bihar challenged the said decision in Patna High Court by filing a Writ Petition and when the matter came up before a Division Bench, in view of the significance of the matter the Division Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench and the case was heard by five judges of the Court. The majority view was expressed by Chief Justice Sandhawalia, as he then was, and the minority views were those of Justice H.L. Agarawal, as he then was, and Justice L.M. Sharma, as he then was. Three questions were formulated by the Court, those questions being :

"1. Whether the personal law applicable to the family has to be taken into consideration for the determination of its holding under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, despite the insertion of clause (ee) and Explanation II thereto in Section 2 of the said Act?

2. If the major-sons of a family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law are entitled to a separate unit under the said Act then would a major son of a family governed by Mohammadan Law be debarred therefrom?

3. Whetherthe Full Bench in Amamul Hasan Choudharyv. State of Bihar and Others1 lays down the law correctly on the aforesaid points?

2. The short facts are that the land holder Aftab Ahmed was shown to be holding 50.02 acres in the draft statement. The said land-holder filed an objection claiming that he is entitled to one additional unit for his adult son. This was rejected by the Additional Sub-divisional Officer: He determined 11.12 acres to be the surplus. The land holder appealed to the Collector but the appeal was dismissed for default. The land holder carried the matter in revision to the Board of Revenue. The Member, Board of Revenue took into consideration the Amendments to the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act 22 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) made tinder Act 1 of 1973 and Act 72 of 1976 and came to the conclusion that personal law of the land holder is not required to be taken into consideration for determination of the holdings. He further held that since the adult son of a land-holder governed by the Mitakshara Law is entitled to a separate unit the decision should be identical with regard to the land holder governed by Mohammedan law. Accordingly he allowed the revision and called upon the authorities to re-determine the ceiling. The State of Bihar being aggrieved by the same filed Writ Petition in the Patna High Court. The learned Chief Justice who spoke for the majority on an analysis of the different provisions of the Act as well as the tracing history of the legislation and the amendments made thereto came to the conclusion that in the ceiling law the statutory "family" as defined in the Act has wholly submerged the ceiling of the land holder and such concept of "family" is entirely secular in character and has universal application irrespective of religion, faith or the personal law applicable to individual members. He further held that despite definition of the statutory "family" and its secular nature excluding personal laws, to still bring in the concept of the Mohammemdan family or Christian family or Mitakshara family for the purpose of the act, is basically fallacious and would run against the gamut of ceiling legislation. The learned Chief Justice accordingly answered the question No. 1 in the following wor