By Court

A proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 was started against the petitioner, Dwarka Singh. The petitioner being aggrieved against the order passed under annexures 3 and 4, being orders of the Collector and Additional Member, Board of Revenue, has filed this writ application, The impugned orders proceeded on the basis that the family of Dwarka Singh had interest in 79. 64½ acres of land. In this Court an application has been filed on behalf of Parwrti Devi stating that the family of Dwarka Singh did not possess 79 64½ acres of land and she has prayed for being impleaded as a party to this writ application.

2. Under Annexure :- it has been held that the family of Dwarka Singh was entitled to two units, one for himself and the other for his son, Sheoji Singh. Before the Collector it was contended that Deokinandan Singh, with whom the petitioner Dwarka Singh was joint died in December, 1972. On his death the three daughters of Deokinandan Singh (sisters of the petitioner) also got interest in the property which was subject matter of the proceeding. It was also contended that there were registered gifts in favcur of the three daughters of the petitioner in conformity with the provisions of Section 5 (5) of the Act, as it stood in 1962 and the lands so transferred should also be excluded from consideration while determ1ning the ceiling area of the family. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner has not been accepted by the Collector. The petitioner, therefore, went in revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue remanded the case and directed the consideration of the question whether Jayanti Devi. one of the daughter of the petitioner. was major on 9-9-70. It has also been directed that there should be a fresh inquiry about the age of Sheoji Singh. who was held to be entitled to a separate unit by the Collector. The order of the Collector has been affirmed in other respects. We are told that the three daughters of the petitioner have filed claim under Section 15(3) of the Act, which has been disposed of and is now pending before the Board of Revenue.

3. The first contention that has been raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the three sisters of the petitioner had also interest as land holders in the family property and that their interest should have been excluded from consideration in the present proceeding. The view taken by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, is that since Deokinandan Singh died subsequent to 9-9-70 there is no question of his three daughters having interest of the landed property of their father on 9-9-70. To this extent the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, is right but we have clarified the legal position in Smt. Savitri Devi Drolia V. State of Bihar that the ceiling area has to be determined with reference to a land held by a living person and not in respect of the dead person. It can not be disputed, in view of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, that on the death of Deokinandan Singh his interest in the property would also devolve on his three daughters in accordC1nce with the provisions of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Thus I/4th interest in the co-parcenary property of which Deokinandan Singh and Dwarka Singh were members devolved on the three daughters. It is, therefore, only in respect of the remaining 3/4th interest that the authorities have jurisdiction to consider whether the same is in excess, of the ceiling area prescribed by law. of course, whatever interest devolves on the three daughters would be clubbed together with that of their respect he husbands for determining whether their family is in excess of the ceiling area.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Additional Member, Board of Revenue erred in law in directing the determination of the question whether Sheoji Singh was a major on 9-9-1970 w