Amareshwar Sahay, J.

1. In view of the short question involved in the present writ application, it is not required to state the facts of the case in detail. According to the case of the original petitioner, she is the widow of Sir Birendra Nath Mookherjee. The property comprised within Municipal Survey plot Nos. 1608 and 1609 in Mouza Konka, District, Ranchi was recorded in the Municipal Survey record of rights published in the year 1929 in the name of Sir R.N. Mookherjee i.e. father-in-law of the original petitioner. Sir R.N. Mookherjee died leaving behind his only son Sir Birendra Nath Mookherjee who constituted a joint family consisting of himself, his major son R.N. Mookherjee, his wife i.e. the original petitioner and two daughters namely, Gita Devi and Nita Devi.

2. Further case of the original petitioner i.e. namely Ranu Priti Mookherjee is that Sir Birendra Nath Mookherjee died on 4.11.1982 leaving behind the following persons who are illustrated in the following geological table.

R.N. MOOKHERJEE

Sir BirenMookherjee-Ranu Priti Mookherjee (Wife) _______________________|______________________

| | |

Ramendra Nath Gita Nita | __________|_________ _____________|________ | | | | | | Ashis Arup Nisha Rahul ____|_____________________________________________ | | | | Rajendra Birendra Mriganayani Hemangini

3. According to the original petitioner i.e. namely Ranu Priti Mookherjee, for the purpose of Ceiling Act there were four families i.e. first family of Sir Biren and Ranu Priti Mookherjee, second family of Ramendra Nath and wife, third family of Gita and husband and fourth family of Nita and husband and thus according to the original petitioner i.e. namely Ranu Priti Mookherjee, since the property inherited by Sir Birendra Nath Mookherjee was ancestral property and therefore, each of the four family described above became entitled to retain vacant land under the provision of the Ceiling Act.

4. It is further stated that Sir Birendra Nath Mookherjee executed a Will in the year 1937 including the property in question but the Will so far it related the property in question became in-operative as Ceiling Act came into the force when Sir Birendra Nath Mookherjee was still alive and till then the Will had not been probated. However, the Will was probated in the year 1984 being granted by the Calcutta High Court much after the Ceiling Act came into force.

Sir, Ramendra Nath Mookherjee being constituted attorney of Sir Birendra Nath Mookherjee filed a statement under Section 6(i) of the Ceiling Act in relation to the land at Ranchi, wherein it was stated that there was no land in excess to the ceiling limit. A Land Ceiling Case No. 416 of 1976 was initiated whereby the Government of Bihar proposed to acquire the lands i.e. plot Nos. 1608 and 1609 situated at Ranchi presuming the same to be property of Sir Birendra Nath Mookherjee alone.

5. The original petitioner i.e. namely Ranu Priti Mookherjee filed an objection before the respondent No. 4 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority, under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, who vide order dated 29.12.1986 as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application passed an order declaring the aforesaid land to be in excess under the provision of Section 10(1) of the Ceiling Act after recprding a finding that Sir Birendra Nath Mookherjee had no issue and the original petitioner i.e. Ranu Priti Mookherjee was only entitled to retain the land within the ceiling limit.

6. According to the original petitioner i.e. namely. Ranu Priti Mookherjee, the finding of the competent authority that Sir Birendra Nath Mookherjee died issueless and had no issue was completely erroneous. Consequent to the order of the respondent No. 4 dated 29.12.1986, a notification was issued in the local newspaper on 30.3.1987 whereby the land in question was sought to be acquired under the provision of the Ceiling Act declaring it to be in excess of the ceiling limit.

7. Being aggrieved by the order d