BIRENDRA PRASAD SINHA, J.

1. The question for consideration in this case is whether a major son of a Muslim land-holder is entitled to a separate unit under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. A proceeding under the Act was started against the petitioner in Ceiling Case No.113/73-74. A draft statement was published declaring 185.68 acres of land of Class III as belonging to the petitioner. Out of this, 160.68 acres were declared to be surplus and the petitioner was allowed to retain 25 acres only. The petitioner then filed an objection under Sec.10(3) of the Act before the Land Reform Deputy Collector, Katihar. One of the objections was that he had a major son named Mohammad Naushad and he should also be allowed a separate unit. The learned Sub-divisional Officer, Katihar, by his order dated 27-11-1976, overruled the objections and held that the petitioners son Mohammed Naushad was not major as on 9-9-1970. The petitioner thereupon preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Katihar, which was numbered as Ceiling Appeal No.607/79-80. The Additional Collector held that although the petitioners son Mohammed Naushad was not major as on 9-9-1970, he was not entitled to a separate unit, as in Muslim Laws, the principle of coparcenery would not apply. The petitioner then filed a revision application before the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, which was registered and numbered as Revision Case No.14 of 1980. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, by resolution dated 10th Sept. 1980, dismissed the revision application holding that the Muslim Laws did not recognise any interest of the sons during the lifetime of the father and, therefore, Muslim major son was not entitled to a separate unit. The petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the orders contained in Annexures-2,3 and 4 passed by the authorities referred to above and has, inter alia, claimed that a Muslim major son is also entitled for a separate unit under the Act.

3. While admitting this application the matter was referred to a Full Bench, in view of a Bench decision of this Court in Shekh Abdul Aziz V/s. State of Bihar, C.W.J.C. No.202 of 1978, decided on 27-2-1980 by B.P. Jha and M.P. Varma, JJ.

4. Mr. Mazhar Hussain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, relying upon the above decision contended that every major son of a Muslim land-holder constitutes a family under the Ceiling Act and was, therefore, entitled to a separate unit. This was seriously resisted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, who submitted that in Muslim Law a son has no right in the property during the lifetime of his father and, therefore, he cannot become a land-holder within the meaning of the Act. Before proceeding to deal with the question raised in this case, I would like to refer to some of the provisions of the Act. Sec.2 (ee) defines the word "family" which "means and includes a person his or her spouse and minor children". Sec.2(g) defines the word "land-holder". It reads as follows :-

"Land-holder" means a family, as defined in Clause (ee) holding land as raiyat or as under-raiyat and includes a mortgagee of land in possession."

Explanation : (i) A member of an undivided Hindu family having or being entitled to a share in land shall be deemed to be a land-holder for the purposes of this Act as if there had been partition in the family immediately before the commencement of this Act.

(ii) In this clause, the word person includes any company, institution, trust, association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not. The word "Raiyat" has been defined in S.2(k) of the Act, which reads as follows :-

(k) "raiyat" means primarily a person who has acquired a right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating it by himself, or by members of his family or by hired servants or with aid of partners, and includes also the successors