S. Ali Ahmad J.

The prayer in this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to quash Annexure 1, an order dated 18.6.1975 passed by the Dy. Collector, Land Reforms, Siwan under section 10 (3) of the Bihar land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, (Amendment Act, 1972 and 1973 (hereinafter to be called) as the 'Act') and also Annexure 2, which is an order dated 8th August, 1975 passed by the Additional Collector, Siwan dismissing the appeal preferred by petitioners against the order contained in Annexure 1 under section 30 of the Act. .It may be stated here that by Annexure 1, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms held that petitioner no. 1 was holding 4.93 acres of land in excess to the ceiling prescribed under the Act.

2. Necessary facts giving rise to this application are that one Nakchhedi Singh died in the year 1968, leaving behind him petitioner no.1 his widow and two major married daughters Srimati Gulabpati Devi and Shrimati Sheojhari Devi. The aforesaid Nakchhedi Singh possessed 20.48 acres of land which, according to the petitioner, was inherited by the widow, petitioner no. 1 and the two daughters, petitioner nos. 2. and 3. According to the petitioners, a notice under section 8 of the Act, was given to petitioner no. i. In response to the said notice petitioner no. 1 submitted a return stating therein that her husband died in the year 1968 leaving behind the three petitioners as his heirs and legal representatives ill accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It was also stated that the three petitioners, who were all majors partitioned the land left by Nakchhedi Singh and came in possession of their respective shares. Three schedules were appended to the returns showing the respective land of the three petitioners which were allotted to them and on which they were in possession separately. The return filed by petitioner no.1 according to the provisions contained in section 8 of the Act, was sent to the Anchal Adhikari for enquiry. The Anchal Adhikari submitted a report stating that petitioner no.1 had 19.93 acres of class I land after converting 3.17 acres of class II land into class I land. According to the Anchal Adhikari, petitioner no. 1 was the only land bolder. Respondent no. 3 the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, accepted the report of the Anchal Adbikari and directed issuance of draft statement under section 10 of the Act, declaring 4.93 acres of land in excess of the ceiling area and holding that married daughters were not entitled to bold any land under the Act. An appeal against the order was preferred which was dismissed as stated above by annexure 2. 3. In the writ application, it has been stated that the husband of petitioners 2 and 3, namely, Kailash Prasad and Madho Prasad are sons of Gopal Prasad of village Sikandarpur. It has also been stated that the said Gopal Prasad had two other sons and the total possessed by his family is about one bigha only. Petitioners 2 and 3, therefore, claim that they practically have no land in their sasural

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents justifying the order contained in Annexures I and 2. It is significant to mention that land belonged to Nakchhedi Singh, who died in the year 1968 has not been disputed nor it has been disputed by, namely, petitioners 2 and 3 besides his widow, petitioner no. 1. It has been, inter alia, stated in the counter affidavit that in the revenue papers the name of petitioner no.1 is recorded.

5. Learned Counsel submitted that prior to 1972 a land bolder could keep 20 acres of class I land. Nakchhedi Singh at the time of his death in the year 1968 had the lands according to learned Counsel, within the permissible limit, He further submitted that when the limit to hold class I land was reduced to 15 acres Nakchhedi Singh was already dead and the land held by him was inherited by, petitioner no. 1 his widow and petitioner