It is apparent that on 9.4.1981, the amended Act came into force being Bihar Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land Amendment Act, 1982 hereinafter called the Amendment Act .
1 since, by that time, Bhagwati Singh, the father, had died.
The appellants moved the High Court by way of a Writ Petition being C.W.J.C. No.3824 of 1986, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
It was pointed out that whatever may be the status on the relevant date under the Ceiling Act, when the proceedings were taken, Rabindra Kumar Singh appellant No.
This order was companyfirmed by the District Collector vide order dated 21.5.1984 and was further companyfirmed in the revision by Resolution dated 22.5.1986 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue.
This objection was rejected by the order dated 31.10.1975.
The appellants then filed a Letters Patent Appeal LPA however, in the LPA, all the aforementioned orders were companyfirmed.
However, a draft statement under Section 11 1 of the Ceiling Act was finally published and gazetted under Section 15 1 of the Ceiling Act, on the basis of the old orders numberdraft statement was published after passing of the order dated 15.12.1977, which ought to have been published numbering the change made by the appellate authority, whereby Rabindra Kumar Singh appellant No.
Pitambar Singh appellant No.1 and his wife and sons were living with Bhagwati Singh.
2 herein was major on 9.9.1970 and accordingly, he was entitled to be treated as a separate family from that of his father Pitambar Singh appellant No.
A draft statement was made and published showing that Pitambar Singh appellant No.
2 was treated to be a major and that there was numbersurplus land in between two families, namely, of Pitambar Singh appellant No.
However, this order was recalled and the appeal filed before the appellate authority came to be dismissed by the order dated 30.6.1976.
His son was Pitambar Singh appellant No.
The proceedings were started vide Ceiling Case No.
1 filed objections under Section 10 3 of the Ceiling Act.
15 of 1973 against Pitambar Singh appellant No.
15 of 1973, the objection filed under Section 10 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act was rejected.
After the remand, the appellate authority, by its order dated 15.12.1977, recorded a finding that Rabindra Kumar Singh appellant No.
1 also had a major son, Ravindra Singh.
On the service of the draft statement, Pitambar Singh appellant No.
One Bhagwati Singh was the original land holder.
An appeal was preferred against this order, wherein it was decided that the appellants should be treated as two families.
2 was major on 9.9.1970 also and as such, he also was entitled to his own share and he companyld number be held as a member of family of Pitambar SIngh.
Bhagwati Singh was alive on 9.9.1970, which is the relevant date under the Ceiling Act.
A revision was filed against this order, which stood allowed by the order dated 10.5.1977, whereby the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for the purpose of determining the age of Rabindra Kumar Singh appellant No.
The ceiling fixed by the Ceiling Act is 18 acres in respect of such land.
2 herein and Jitendra Kumar Singh.
By order dated 31.12.1983 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in Ceiling Case No.
1 herein and Pitambar Singh has two sons, namely, Rabindra Kumar Singh appellant No.
They were members of a Mitakshara joint family and were having a total family holding of 33.95 acres of class II land.
Still Pitambar Singh appellant No.
2 herein as on 9.9.1970.
1 was entitled to retain only 18 acres of land and thus, the family was holding 15.95 acres of land as surplus land.
1 and of his son Rabindra Kumar Singh appellant No.
It is very significant to numbere that this order was never challenged by the State by way of a revision and the said order attained the finality.
In order to appreciate the companytentions raised by Shri Nagendra Rai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, it is necessary to go into the facts of the case.
S. SIRPURKAR, J. Leave granted.
A judgment dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal and companyfirming the order of the Single Judge has fallen for companysideration in this appeal.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition.
