The State of Bihar challenged the said decision in Patna High Court by filing a Writ Petition and when the matter came up before a Division Bench, in view of the significance of the matter the Division Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench and the case was heard by five judges of the Court.
This was rejected by the Additional Sub divisional Officer.
In the ceiling fixation case of a land holder Aftab Ahmed, the Member, Board of Revenue came to the companyclusion that an adult son of a land holder governed by Mohammedan law would be entitled to a separate unit since an adult son of a land holder governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law is entitled to the same.
The majority view was expressed by Chief Justice Sandhawalia, as he then was, and the minority views were those of Justice H.L.Agrawal, as he then was, and Justice L.M. Sharma, as he then was.
He determined 11.12 acres to be the surplus.
The land holder appealed to the Collector but the appeal was dismissed for default.
The Member, Board of Revenue took into companysideration the Amendments to the Bihar Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling area and Acquisition of Surplus land Act, 1961 Bihar Act 22 of 1962 hereinafter referred to as The Act made under Act 1 of 73 and Act 72 of 76 and came to the companyclusion that personal law of the land holder is number required to be taken into companysideration for determination of the holdings.
Three questions were formulated by the Court, those questions being Whether the personal law applicable to the family has to be taken into companysideration for the determination of its holding under the Bihar Land Reforms Fixation of ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land Act, 1961.
The land holder carried the matter in revision to the Board of Revenue.
The State of Bihar being aggrieved by the same filed Writ Petition in the Patna High Court.
The said land holder filed an objection claiming that he is entitled to one additional unit for his adult son.
PATTANAIK,J. This appeal by the State of Bihar raises the question whether major sons of a family governed by Mohammedan law are entitled to a separate unit while determining the ceiling area of a ceiling surplus holder?
