S.K.JHA, J.

1. In these two applications under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are involved some common questions arising out of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act 12 of 1962), hereinafter referred to as the parent Act, and the amendments made therein by virtue of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Bihar Act I of 1973) hereinafter referred to as the amending Act Hence, this common judgment. Before setting out of the points raised at the Bar and the questions involved, it is worthwhile to state the facts relating to each of the two applications separately.

C. W. J. C. 1040/74

2. Petitioner No.1, Nalini Ranjan Singh, is the husband of petitioner No.2, Shrimati Usharani Singh, and the father of petitioner No. 3, Padmanabh alias Chetan, a minor. Petitioner No. 1 had a number of co-sharers all descending from his father Rukmini Raman Singh. In 1956 petitioner No. 1 instituted title suit 45 of 1956 in the Court of 1st Munsif, Sitamarhi, for declaration of title and recovery of possession with mesne profits in respect of some lands allotted to him as a result of partition in the joint family against his father Rukmini Raman Singh. On the 28th of June, 1956 a compromise decree was passed by which a previous partition amongst the co-sharers and petitioner No. 1 as also his father Rukmini Raman Singh wag recognised and affirmed. On the 6th of September, 1962 petitioner No. 1 made a gift of 42.671/2 acres of land to his wife, petitioner No. 2, by a registered deed and her name was duly mutated in the revenue records of the State. She has been paying rent to the State as also agricultural income-tax assessed from time to time. On the 31st of March, 1966 petitioner No. 1 transferred 57.391/2 acres of land to petitioner No. 3 by a private partition in the family of the petitioners. Petitioner No. 3 was thereafter duly mutated and rent is being paid on his behalf to the revenue authorities of the State. Upto the 22nd of June, 1968 by some registered sale deeds petitioner No. 1 sold 9.35 acres of land to different persons and 1.03 acre of land was acquired by the State Government for seed multiplication. After the exclusion of the aforesaid lands, petitioner No. 1 was left with 52.931/2 acres including culturable land and orchards. On the 3rd of October, 1970 the Deputy Collector, Sitamarhi, respondent No. 3, issued a notice (Annexure-1) to petitioner No. 1, which was received by him on the 17th of October, 1970, requiring him to submit a return by the 27th of October, 1970 with regard to the lands held by him. Petitioner No. 1 prayed extension of time which was granted and within the time extended he duly submitted a return in ceiling case 7 of 1970-71. After due enquiries and on a consideration of all the facts and circumstances including the affidavits filed on behalf of petitioner No. 1. final order in the case was passed on the 29th of April, 1971, a copy whereof has been marked Annexure-2. That order is a rather long one and the operative portion thereof runs thus-

"On examination of the whole case I find that this land-holder holds only 52.931/2 acres in his own possession as separate L. H. The break up is also within the permissible limit under the existing provisions of the Act. I dont find cogent reasons to disbelieve the affidavits sworn and the contents therein. The proceeding is, therefore, dropped. Write to the Sub-Registrar, Sitamarhi, to delete his name from the list of land-holders holding excess land. Let separate records be started in the name of Srimati Usha Rani Singh and Chetan as said earlier and inform the Sub-Registrar."

After this order was passed, petitioner No. 1 sold some lands with the permission of the Consolidation Officer since consolidation proceedings were going on. Then came the amending Act the landmarks of which I shall advert to later at a more a