1. "It is a canon of statutory interpretation founded on happy experience, that Parliament is presumed to intend justice and to avoid injustice." So said Lord Simon in Rugby Joint Water Board V/s. Foottit, 1972 1 AllER 1057 reiterating a rule which has been fully recognised, and appropriately applied, in interpreting provisions of Statute. The instant case is also one of those cases where in order to get at the legislative intent this rule of interpretation has to be invoked. But first the facts.

2. A proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act was started against Brajdeo Narain Singh (who died during the pendency of the revision application before the Board and was substituted by his heirs). An objection was filed to the draft statement which was served on the said Brajdeo Narain Singh. The objection was heard and disposed of under Annexure 3. An appeal was filed which has been disposed of under Annexure 2. Thereafter a revision filed before the Board of Revenue, has been disposed of under Annexure 1 by the Additional Member Board of Revenue. The petitioners challenge all these Annexures and pray that they be quashed.

3. The objections with which we are concerned in this case relates to classification of the lands, exclusion of property gifted by the aforesaid Brajdeo Narain Singh to his daughter by a registered deed of gift dated 7-3-1963, and that the petitioners were entitled to additional land permitted to be held under S. 5 (3) (i) of the Act. We shall deal with each of these objections separately.

4. The question whether the lands gifted to petitioner No. 4 should or should not have been excluded from consideration depends on whether she was major on the appointed day. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the finding in relation thereto is vitiated. Since, however, we are remanding the case we do not propose to express any opinion on this question, which may be raised before the authorities, when the question of classification and additional land permitted to be held is being considered.

5. According to the draft statement 8.17 acres were class I and 20.94 acres of lands were class II lands. This has been accepted by the authorities and the objection of the land-holder to the contrary has been rejected, in holding that the lands as Class I and Class II lands, the authorities came to the following conclusions:

(a) That a portion of land was irrigated by State tubewell which was constructed in the year 1972.

(b) 20.94 acres classified as class II land was being irrigated from private tubewells belonging to different persons and not the land-holder, who had only one tubewell. In other words, although, the land-holder had only one tubewell so far as his lands were concerned they were, in fact, irrigated by tubewells which belonged to the other raiyats.

6. The first contention that has been raised in this connection is that the appointed day is 9th of Sept., 1970. The ceiling area has to be determined as on the appointed day. Consequently, it has to be seen whether the irrigational facilities were available on that day. The fact that the State tubewell was constructed about two years after the appointed day would not be relevant for the purpose of classification of the lands in question and would not make the lands class I land. The view taken by the authorities is that the fact that the tubewell was constructed in the year 1972 is not of importance and it does not make any difference, since 9-9-1970 is not relevant for the propose of classification of the land. The contention of the petitioner appears to be correct. After the amendment brought about by Act 22 of 1976, it is now clear, in view of the amendment of S. 4 of Act 12 of 1976, that the ceiling area has to be determined with reference to the appointed day, the actual, words used in the section being "on the appointed day the following should be ceiling area for one