A major child is not entitled to a separate unit while determining the ceiling area of a landholder's family. On the death of a landholder, the interest in the property devolves on the heirs, who can ask for a share even in a land ceiling proceeding. The authorities under the Ceiling Act have jurisdiction to determine the share of an heir.

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.- In a land ceiling proceeding, certain lands were declared surplus, the appeal and revision applications preferred by the landholder were rejected. The aforesaid ORDER :s, as contained in Annexures-3, 2 & 1 respectively, have been challenged by the petitioners.

2. A land Ceiling Case no.17 of 1973-74 was initiated against the original landholder late Jagarnath Prasad Singh wherein final ORDER :was passed on 28th April, 1981 and notification U/s 11(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 26th February, 1983 whereby and whereunder 18.07 acres of lands were declared surplus. Two units were allowed in favour of the landholders and their family. Being not satisfied, the landholders preferred appeal. In the meantime, in view of insertion of section 32A of the Act, the original proceeding abated. A fresh proceeding was started and re-numbered as L.C. Case no.8 of 1990-91. This time, after submission of a fresh verification report and draft publication, the petitioners filed objection under section 10(3) of the Act. They claimed for more units, exclusion of certain lands from the proceeding and challenged the classification. Prayer was rejected vide original ORDER :dated 3rd/7th July, 1995 and only two units, one in favour of first petitioner Uma Shankar Prasad and the other in favour of second petitioner Smt. Kishori Devi (Widow of late Jagarnath Prasad Singh) were allowed. No separate unit was allowed in favour of third petitioner-Sabita Mishra, nor any land was excluded towards her share. The appeal and then the revision applications, thereafter, preferred by the petitioners were also rejected vide ORDER :s dated 5th November, 1996 and 21st February, 1998 respectively.

3. The grievance of the petitioners, as was raised by the counsel, only related to separate unit, share of the daughter-Sabita Mishra and in respect to the classification of land as was shown in the proceeding.

Counsel for the petitioners relied on Bench decisions of this Court in Dwarika Singh's case (1977 B.B.C.J. 696) and Pramod Prasad Singh's case [1998(2) P.L.J.R. 689] in respect to share of daughter. Reliance was also placed in Shiv Narain Khawaray's case (1977 B.B.C.J.452) in respect to classification of land.

4. The counsel for the State while opposed the prayer, submitted that the petitioners failed to persue their case before the original authority and did not press the objection. He placed reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.M. Zuberi & others [1996(2) P.L.J.R. 55(S.C.)] in support of contention that the daughter being not a member of the family, was not entitled for separate unit.

5. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that a suggestion was made by the counsel for the petitioners that if a person is major and is a member of family, under the Ceiling Act, such person is entitled for ceiling unit.

For determination as to whether a member of a family, if major as on cut-off date(9.9.1970) is entitled for a separate unit or not, it is essential to analyse the different provisions of the Ceiling Act. The question relating to determination of ceiling unit and share of heir fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of K.M. Zuberi (supra). Therein the Court while upholding the minority view of Full Bench decision of this Court, held:-

"An analysis of the aforesaid provisions unequivocally indicate that under the Act the ceiling area is required to be determined of a "family" as defined in section 2(ee) and, therefore, the land holder of whose ceiling is going to be determined may be either a person, his or her spouse and minor children. A major child whether belonging to a Hindu family or Mohammedan or Christian is not conceived of getting an additional unit while determining the ceiling area of a land holder. A major son of a Hindu can get an independent ceiling determined provided he