1. This writ petition arises from a land ceiling proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and a draft statement was prepared on 4.11.1977 showing him in possession of 110.5 acres of Class V lands.

2. According to the petitioner, his father, Anirudh Prasad Singh died in 1976, before the commencement of the proceeding, leaving behind his widow Smt. Yavendra Priya Devi, two sons Kedar Prasad Singh and the present petitioner Pramod Prasad Singh and five daughters, all of whom had attained majority long before the appointed date 9.9.1970. In this case, we are not concerned with Kedar Prasad Singh, the other brother of the petitioner, who according to the petitioners case was living separately from the life time of their father and against whom a separate land ceiling proceeding was initiated. In the proceeding initiated against the petitioner, the Additional Collector after considering the petitioners objections under Sec. 10(iii) of the Act allowed him 2 units-one for himself and the other for his widowed mother, and directed for preparation of the final statement showing 88 acres of Class IV land and declaring 28 acres as surplus. At the appellate stage, the question of units for the five sisters of the petitioner was also agitated and the Collector by his order, dated 29.1.80 remanded the matter to the Additional Collector with direction to consider, inter alia, the question of giving shares to the five daughters of the late Anirudh Prasad Singh.

3. At that stage the proceeding got abated in terms of Sec. 32-A and a fresh proceeding was initiated under Sec. 32-B of the Act. It may be noted here that in the freshly initiated proceeding a verification report dated 12.3.1983 was received, which supported the case of the petitioner that his father Anirudh Prasad Singh on his death had left behind five daughters who were all major on 9.9.1970. The Additional Collector, however by his order, dated 15.12.1984 (Annexure-1) once again allowed only two units to the petitioner. One for himself and the other for his widowed mother.

4. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order, which was dismissed by the Collector by order, dated 6.3.1986 (Annexure-9). The Collector disallowed any units to the petitioners five sisters on the ground that in the earliest return filed on 19.2.77 there was no mention of the five daughters left behind by the petitioners father.

5. The petitioner then came in revision before the Member, Board of Revenue. The revisional Court by order, dated 3.3.1989 (Annexure-11) dismissed the revision and affirmed the orders passed by the Additional Collector and the Collector. The Additional Member. Board of Revenue disallowed any units to the petitioners five sisters on the plea that on the death of Anirudh Prasad Singh the entire lands held by him devolved upon his widowed wife and not upon his sons and daughters, and the daughters therefore might claim any share in the land left behind by the father only in a partition suit and not otherwise. The relevant passage in the order passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue is contained in paragraph 6 which is as follows:

6. Now the main contention of the petitioner is that he should be allowed shares for five daughters. Since the daughters names were not mentioned in the return dated 19.2.77 of Anirudh Prasad Singh and there were no documents to support their existence. The learned Collector disallowed this contention. The learned A.G.P Shri Jageshwar Prasad Sinha in his notes of arguments has ably and intelligently rebutted the contention of the petitioner and pointed out the correct position of law His arguments are that the unit of Anirudh Prasad Singh has already, on his death, passed to Yavendra Priya Devi, the widow. It can devolve on sons and daughters only after the death of the widow mother, If