The onus lies on the petitioners to prove that their sons were major on the appointed date, and the authorities are not required to prove that they were not.

S. K. Homchaudhuri, J.

1. During the pendency of this petition, an application was filed on 20.11.1992 by the Secretary of the Bihar Kisan Samitee on behalf of landless agricultural labourers, which is a peasants organisation, formed with the aims and objects to implement Land Reforms Laws and is championing the cause of the landless agricultural labourers, for being impleaded as intervenor respondent in this petition. By order dated 23.2.93, the aptplications was ordered to be considered at the time of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioners has objected to the prayer of allowing the application of the intervenor. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, does not dispute the contention of the learned counsel for the intervenor that was allowed to be impleaded to espouse the interest of the landless agricultural labourers in similar writ petitions, namely, C. W. J. C. No.9836 of 1992 and C. W. J. C. No.6323 of 1989. As such, I allow the application of the intervenor to be impleaded as Respondent in this petition.

2. The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act 12 of 1962), hereinafter mentioned as the Act, although enacted in the 12th year of Republic of India, yet prolonged legal battles as regards fixation of surplus land for acquisition and distribution thereof to the landless agricultural labourers are continuing and the avowed land reform has been stalled in this State. Disputes on the question of determination of units in a particular family and the classification of lands are the fertile grounds of the protracted litigations for years together.

3. With a view to determining the surplus land and acquisition thereof in the hands of the petitioners under the provisions of the Act, a report was submitted by the Anchal Authorities, after verification and Ceiling Case No.1103 of 1974-75 was registered and petitioner no.1 was directed to file objection against the draft statement. Petitioner no; 1 filed objection under section 10 (1) of the Act. As per draft statement, the petitioners were allowed to retain land allowable for five units, whereas, according to petitioner no.1, there were 9 units in this family in view of the fact that he had eight sons and all the sons became major before the appointed date i. e.9.9.1970. Besides, the petitioner no.1 claimed 4/10 units for four additional minors. The petitioners also challenged the classification of the lands contending that there was no irrigational facility for cultivation of the lands in question up to 9.9.1970. In support of the age of petitioners no.7 and 8, report of the Civil Surgeon based on ossification test and other tests was submitted.

4. The petitioners objection having been rejected, they preferred an appeal. The appeal filed against the said order was also rejected. The petitioners, thereafter, preferred a revision petition registered as Revision Case No.333 of 1976 before the Board of Revenue, Bihar. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, by the judgment and order dated 12.4.1977 held that from the matriculation certificate of Udai, Singh, it appeared that his age was 25 years on 27.4.1976. From the genealogical table filed by the petitioners, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, found that three sons of petitioner no.1 were approximately of the same age and discarded the contention that the petitioners Chitranjan and Shambhu were major on or before 9.9.1970. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue, however, accepted the contention of the petitioners that Udai Pratap Singh was major on or before 9.9.1970 and was entitled to a separate unit, in respect of classification, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, held that the question has to be re-examined to find out the source of irrigation for proper classification of the land. The petitioners, thereafter, approached this court in a writ petition registered as C. W. J. C. No.1104 of 1977. This court, by the judgment passed on 4.11.1977,