IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2005 of 2007 1. Most Urmila Devi widow of Late Surendra Prasad Verma 2. Sanjeev Kumar Verma Son of Late Surendra Pd. Verma 3. Bhupendra Prasad Jaipuriar Son of Late Pancham Prasad 4. Nagendra Prasad Jaipuriar Son of Late Pancham Prasad 5. Satyendra Prasad Jaipuriar Son of Late Pancham Prasad. 6. Most Neelam Jaipuriar Widow of Late Ravindra Pd. Jaipuriar, All residents of Mohalla- Madhubani, Police Station- Khajanchi Hat, District- Purnia --- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Member Board of Revenue Bihar, Patna High Court 3. The Collector of Purnia District- Purnia 4. The Additional Collector Land Ceiling, Purnia 5. Anchal Adhikari at Purnia East Anchal within the district of Purnia 6. Anchal Adhikari at Banmankhi Anchal within the district of Purnia 7. Anchal Adhikari at K. Nagar Anchal within the district of Purnia ---- Respondents. --------- 3. 20.1.2009 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Ambastha for the petitioners and Smt. Kumari Amrita, learned Standing Counsel No.1 (Ceiling) for the respondents. It arises out of proceedings for determination of ceiling area under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and is directed against the order dated 16.3.2005 (Annexure-4), passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, in Revision Case No. 55 of 2004 (Surendra Prasad Verma and others Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors.), whereby 6 unit plus 3/10 units have been allowed 2 to the landholder, within his ceiling area. 2. Land ceiling proceedings under the Act were initiated with respect to the lands held by Pancham Prasad and his family. The proceedings before the learned Collector under the Act was registered as Land Ceiling Case No. 21 of 1974-75 ( State of Bihar Vrs. Pancham Prasad & Ors.). The genealogy contained in schedule I to the objection of the landholders under section 10(3) of the Act is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:- Schedule – I Genealogy The Genealogical table of the family of Smt. Munder Devi, W/o Late Shree Pancham Prasad, Advocate, Purnia – Age on 6.4.84. Late Gopal Lal (Died on 19.12.57) W – Nandani Devi (died in 1959) Pancham Pd. Barki Devi Manjhali Devi Sanjhali Devi Munni Devi Panchami Devi W - Smt. Munder Devi (Age - 83 years) Surendra Pd. Verma (Age - 66 Yrs.) Smt. Urmila Devi (Age - 60 Yrs.) Bhupendra Pd. Jaipuriyar (Age - 56 Yrs.) Smt. Usha Devi (Age - 51 Yrs.) Nagendra Pd. Jaipuriyar (Age - 54 Yrs.) Manjulata Devi (Age - 47 Yrs.) Satendra Pd. Jaipuriyar (Age - 52 Yrs.) Smt. Asha Sinha (Age - 46 Yrs.) Rabindra Pd. Jaipuriyar (Age - 46 Yrs.) Smt. Neelam Devi (Age - 37 Yrs.) Smt. Laxmi Devi (Age - 64 Yrs.) W/o Sri Jagar Murari Manish Jaipuriyar Silpy Anuj Kumar Somya Vinita Vinima Neeraj Kumar Pankaj @ Nitin Kr. Ashok Murari (Age - 42 Yrs.) Anoop Murari (Age - 38 Yrs.) Vivek Murari (Age - 30 Yrs.) Neelam Kri. Raju Kr. Punam Jaipuriyar Meenam Jaipuriyar Sunil Kr. Verma (Age - 36 Yrs.) Sanjib Kr. Verma (Age - 32 Yrs.) Anil Kr. Verma (Dead) Sheela Kri. Sushma Kr. Sunita Jaipuriyar 3 3. The learned Collector under the Act, namely, the learned Additional Collector (Ceiling), Purnea, disposed of the objections by his order dated 16.8.1993 (Annexure-2), whereby six units plus 3/10 units were granted to the landholder and his family. Aggrieved by this order, the land-holders preferred appeal which was registered as Case No. 69/1994 (Surendra Prasad Verma and others Vrs. State of Bihar). The appeal was dismissed by order dated 17.9.2004 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned Collector of the district of Purnea, and the order of the learned first authority ( the Collector under the Act) was upheld. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the landholders preferred revision application which has been substantially dismissed, but partially allowed to the extent that he has now been given one more unit. It is relevant to state that the respondent authorities have issued the notification under section 11(1) of the Act on 23.11.1993, and had published the notification under section 15(1) on 26.10.2004 . The learned Member, Board of Revenue, has set aside the said notification dated 26.10.2004, under section 15(1) of the Act and has directed for its re-publication after modification. 4. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Gopal Lal was the common ancestor and the original landholder who died on 19.12.1957. His widow died in the year 1959, leaving behind one 4 son and five daughters. Pancham Prasad, the son, died on 5.4.1984, leaving behind his heirs mentioned in the genealogy. The five daughters of late Gopal Lal are Barki Devi, Sanjhali Devi, Manjhali Devi, Munni Devi, and Panchami Devi. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he had raised the claim of separate shares to the five daughters as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, but the issue has been ignored by all the three authorities. In his submission, he is supported by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dwarika Singh Vrs. The State of Bihar & Others, reported in 1977 B.B.C.J. 696 . It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order may be set aside to that extent, the five daughters may be allowed one share each which shall be clubbed with the shares of their respective husbands, and their shares to that extent can not form part of the present land ceiling proceedings. In other words, the shares of five daughters shall be clubbed with the lands of their husbands in their respective Sasural and can form part of land ceiling proceedings there. 5. Learned Standing Counsel (Ceiling) has made appropriate submissions. 6. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, during the course of submissions, submitted photocopies of his original petition of objection under section 10(3) of the Act, which forms part of the records, copy 5 whereof has been supplied to the learned Standing Counsel. It is manifest from paragraph 5 of the same read with schedule I (the genealogy) thereto, that late Gopal Lal died leaving behind one son and five daughters. This aspect of the matter finds reference in paragraph 4 of the order of the learned first authority and has also been discussed by the learned appellate authority. The learned revisional authority has also discussed this issue in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment and has rejected this contention on the ground that the landholders did not submit adequate proof in support of their evidence that late Gopal Lal died leaving behind five daughters. I am afraid all the three authorities have approached the issue erroneously. Paragraph 3 of the judgment in the case of Dwarika Singh(supra) is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:- “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 accordance with the provisions of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Thus 1/4th interest in the coparcenary property of which Deokinandan Singh and Dwarka Singh were members 6 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 devolved on the three daughters would be clubbed together with that of their respective husbands for determining whether their family is in excess of the ceiling area.” 7. It is evident that the authorities under the Act assume jurisdiction only with respect to the lands held by the landholder and the sons of the family. They have no jurisdiction to deal with the lands which have been allotted to the shares of the daughters as per the Hindu Succession Act, otherwise that would be completely defeating of the right of inheritance available to the daughters under the Hindu Succession Act. In that sense, the approach of the learned Board of Revenue is one of the misdirection. Once issue of jurisdiction arises, it becomes the duty of the authorities to determine issues of facts and law to decide its own jurisdiction over the subject matter before him. Once it is found that Gopal Lal died leaving behind five daughters, who are entitled to one share each, the authorities under the Act are deprived of the jurisdiction to the extent of defined or undefined shares of five daughters which will be clubbed with the shares of their respective husbands and can appropriately be considered in the land ceiling proceedings with respect to their husbands. 8. In that view of the matter, this part of the impugned judgment is hereby set aside. Naturally, therefore, the discussion and the findings with respect to the shares of the five daughters 7 occurring in the judgment of the three authorities below are hereby set aside. The five daughters are entitled to one share each. The matter goes back on remand to the learned Collector under the Act who shall exclude the shares of the five daughters of late Gopal Lal, and re-determine the ceiling area of the landholders, namely, Pancham Prasad and his heirs. 9. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in part. The orders of the three authorities are set aside in the manner indicated hereinabove who shall allot one share each to the five daughters and proceed in accordance with law and the observations made hereinabove. Let it be clarified that only portion of the impugned order has been set aside. The learned first authority shall be careful in implementing the directions in the present case along with the findings of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, to the extent the same have not been set aside. In case of doubt or difficulty, the authorities shall lean in favour of the land-holder. Reference may be made to the Judgment reported in 2004(4) P.L.J.R. 323 (Baldeo Prasad Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)