Judgment of the Court- This application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been made against an order declaring 4.22 acres of land of the family of the petitioners as surplus land to be vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The total land possessed by the family of the petitioners is 42 acres and odd decimals. The family of the petitioners has been allowed to have 36 acres of land on the basis that it constituted of the units. The claim of the petitioners is that the family consists of three units and in that view of the matter no land should have been declared to be surplus at all. Admittedly Ganga Das, petitioner no. 1 has got three sons. Narain Das, Jai Kumar Das and Shyamanand Das. There is no dispute that Narain Das was major on the relevant date and Shyamanand Das was minor on that date. The dispute is with regard to Jai Kumar Das. According to the petitioners, he also was a major on the relevant date and therefore, entitled to be treated as a separate unit for the purposes of the Act. According to the respondents, he has been treated as a minor, and, therefore, the family constituted of only two units, one of Ganga Das and another of Narain Das, the minor son. 2. As it appears from Annexure 1', the return was filed by petitioner no. 1 on 8th August, 1974, Jaikumar Das, the petitioner no. 3 was stated to be of 19 years of age. There is nothing on record to dispute that statement of the petitioners. Even the Karamchari in his report dated 21st July, 1974 reported that Jai Kumar Das was aged 19 years. The report of the Karamchari has been shown to us by the learned Government pleader appearing for the respondents. Learned Government pleader, however, has contended that the relevant date with reference to which the age is to be determined is 9th September, 1970 from which date the amendment introduced by Bihar Act 1 of 1973 came into force. The report of the Karamchari has been shown to us by the learned Government pleader appearing for the respondents. Learned Government pleader, however, has contended that the relevant date with reference to which the age is to be determined is 9th September, 1970 from which date the amendment introduced by Bihar Act 1 of 1973 came into force. We are not inclined to accept that argument Section 2 (ee) of the Act, as it stands after the aforesaid amendment defines family to mean and include a person his or her spouse and minor children. Section 2 (ee) defines a minor child as a person (male or female) who has not completed eighteen years of age. The definition does not say that the age of 18 years referred to in section 2 (ee) is to be determined with reference to the date, the 9th September 1970 when the amending Act come into force rather, section 6 (a) lays down that as soon as may be, after the commencement of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act 1973, the state Government shall cause to be published a notice in the manner laid down in sub-section (3) calling upon all the land holders of the State who hold land in excess of the Ceiling area, anywhere in the state to submit to the Collector of the district where they ordinarily reside within 30 days of the date specified in the notice, a return containing the necessary particulars as mentioned in that sub-section. This notice under section 6 (3) was published on 18th March, 1974. It has been contended on behalf of petitioners that the relevant date will be the date of the draft publication but we do not consider it necessary to decide that question, At any rate, the relevant date for purposes of deciding whether a person is minor or not must not be before the notice under section 6 (3) is published. In the instant case, as already stated, the said notice was published on 18th March, 1974. In July and August, 1974, Jaikumar Das, petitioner no. 3 was aged 19 years. In the instant case, as already stated, the said notice was published on 18th March, 1974. In July and August, 1974, Jaikumar Das, petitioner no. 3 was aged 19 years. Therefore he was more than 18 years of age on 18th March, 1974 when the notice under section 6 (3) was published and, thus, he was not a minor; rather a major on that date and entitled to have a separate unit. In that view of the matter, the order of respondent no. 3 that 4.27 acres of land belonging to the family of petitioner is surplus appears to be bad in law. Really that order has not been made annexure to the writ application rather the draft publication based on that order has been made Annexure "2" to the writ application. As the order itself is bad, the draft publication (Annexure "2") based on that order has to be quashed. The application is accordingly allowed and Annexure 2 is quashed. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.