S.SARWAR ALI, J.

1. These two applications have been heard one after the other. Since several points raised in these applications are common, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. I propose, after giving necessary facts of each case, to deal with the constitutional and legal points raised first, before examining their impact on the two cases. In dealing with those questions I shall notice the arguments of the learned counsel appearing in both the writ applications.

Facts of C. W. J. C. No. 74 of 1974:

2. Petitioner No. 1 in this case is father of petitioners Nos. 3 and 4, petitioner No. 3 being major and petitioner No. 4 being minor. Petitioner No. 2 is the wife of petitioner No. 1. According to the petitioners petitioner No. 1 was the Karta of the joint Mitakshara family consisting of himself, his wife and his two children. For the sake of convenience and management of the joint family properties petitioners separated from each other and each of them got 1/4th share in the joint properties. In the year 1967 a return was filed by petitioner No. 1 under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961 (the `A