S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The three significant issues, which emerge in this reference to the large-Bench, deserve a somewhat precise formulation in the terms following :

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 cl.(ee) and Explanation II thereto in S.2 of the said Act?

2. If the major sons of a family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Lal 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. Whether the Full Bench in Imamul Hasan Choudhary V/s. State of Bihar 1982 BBCJ (HC) 208 : (AIR 1982 Pat. 89) lays down the law correctly on the aforesaid points?

2. The relevant facts lie in a narrow compass. The total area of land held by respondent 2, the land-holder Aftab Ahmad and his family was shown in the draft publication as 50.82 acres. In the ceiling proceeding the respondent land-holder in his objection petition laid claim to one additional unit for his adult son, Faiyaz Ahmad. This was summarily rejected by the Additional Sub-divisional Officer (Ceiling) and on merits the landholder was allowed to retain 39 acres of land and the rest of 11.82 acres of land was declared surplus. Aggrieved thereby, respondent 2 appealed to the Collector but it would appear that the said appeal was dismissed in default without a speaking order. The matter was then carried in revision before the Board of Revenue and the learned Additional Member, in an exhaustive and lucid judgment, took the view that after the insertion of cl.(ee) by Act 1 of 1973 and the addition of Explanation II thereto by Act 22 of 1976 in S.2 of the Act the personal law of the landholder was no longer to be taken into consideration for the determination of the holdings. He held that on the settled law that the adult son of a landholder governed by the Mitakshara law being entitled to a separate unit, the position would be identical with regard to an adult son of a landholder governed by Mohammadan Law. Accordingly, the revision was allowed and the authorities below were directed to re-determine the ceiling in accordance with the said view.

3. The State of Bihar has come up by way of this writ petition against the order of the Board of Revenue. This case originally came up before a Division Bench where a serious challenge was laid to the correctness of the view in Imamul Hasan Choudhary V/s. State of Bihar 1982 BBCJ (HC) 208 : (AIR 1982 Pat 89) on the ground that it has been rendered per in curiam without noticing the statutory amendments in S. 2 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The learned counsel for the petitioner State also, with great fairness had taken the stand that the issue should be considered by a large Bench in view of its considerable significance in the context of the applicability of Ceiling Laws to Mohammadan Landowners not only in the State but on the national level. Consequently, the case has been referred to a larger Bench and that is how it is before us now.

4. Now, the core of Mr. Daman Kant Jhas contention on behalf of the appellant (petitioner?) State is that it is only the individual landholder as such who can be entitled to a separate unit under the Act. According to him, unless land is first owned and held by a person, he cannot possibly lay claim to an independent unit and, for that matter, even to an inch of the land under the ceiling Law. In sum, the basic submission was that unless some right or title to the land is first established in the individual landholder, the very question of any entitlement to a separate unit would not arise. On this premise, he contended that the adult son of a landholder in a coparcenary governed by the Mitakshar