IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.57 of 2009 --------- 1.Ganesh Prasad Singh , S/O Late Brahmdeo Singh 2. Arbind Kumar Singh 3. Mukund Kumar Singh, both sons of Sri Ganesh Prasad Singh, all residents of village Bengabitole Dhang, P.S. Majorganj, District- Sitamarhi....Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, Patna 3. Collector, East Champaran at Motihari 4. Addl. Collector, East Champaran at Motihari 5. Anchal Adhikari, Majorganj, Dist. Sitamarhi 6. Anchal Adhikari, Bairgania, Distt. Sitamarhi 7. Anchal Adhikari, Bathnaha, Distt. Sitamarhi 8. Anchal Adhikari, Gorasahan, Distt. East Champaran 9. Anchal Adhikari, Chiraiya, Distt- East Champaran 10. Anchal Adhikari, Motihari, District- East Champaran...........................................Opp. Parties --------- 5 10-8-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Nobody appears on behalf of the State. This review application is directed against our order dated 12-1-2009 whereby L.P.A. No. 154 of 2006 was dismissed after holding that the law is well settled that in order to claim an independent unit of land under the Bihar Land Ceiling Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act`), the claimant must be a major on 9-9-1970. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed 2 reliance upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Ganga Das Vrs. The State of Bihar, reported in 1976 BBCJ 409 for advancing submission that relevant date for attaining majority, ie. 18 years of age is the date of notice under section 6(3) of the Act and not the 9th September, 1970. The said judgment took notice of the provisions in the Act as amended till 1973. Under section 2(ee) of the Act the family is defined to mean and include a person, his or her spouse and minor children. It was observed by the Division Bench in that case that the definition did not say that the age of 18 years is with reference to 9th September, 1970 when the amending Act came into force. However, by subsequent amendment by Bihar Act 22 of 1976 which was enforced with retrospective effect, another definition of “ Minor Child” was introduced in Section 2 (eee). As per that definition it was amply clarified by statute that in relation to a family whose ceiling area is determined under section 4 with reference to the land held by it on the 9th September, 1970, “minor child” shall mean “a person who has not attained the age of 18 years on that date” and in respect of future acquisition as 3 contemplated in Section 18, the date on which acquisition takes place. In view of aforesaid amendment in the Act, the relevant date for determining majority is no other date except 9th September, 1970. Hence, we find no merit in this review application. It is accordingly dismissed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Shyam Kishore Sharma,J)