JUDGMENT S. Ali Ahmad J. The prayer in this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to quash Annexure 1, an order dated 18.6.1975 passed by the Dy. Collector, Land Reforms, Siwan under section 10 (3) of the Bihar land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, (Amendment Act, 1972 and 1973 (hereinafter to be called) as the 'Act') and also Annexure 2, which is an order dated 8th August, 1975 passed by the Additional Collector, Siwan dismissing the appeal preferred by petitioners against the order contained in Annexure 1 under section 30 of the Act. .It may be stated here that by Annexure 1, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms held that petitioner no. 1 was holding 4.93 acres of land in excess to the ceiling prescribed under the Act. 2. Necessary facts giving rise to this application are that one Nakchhedi Singh died in the year 1968, leaving behind him petitioner no.1 his widow and two major married daughters Srimati Gulabpati Devi and Shrimati Sheojhari Devi. The aforesaid Nakchhedi Singh possessed 20.48 acres of land which, according to the petitioner, was inherited by the widow, petitioner no. 1 and the two daughters, petitioner nos. 2. and 3. According to the petitioners, a notice under section 8 of the Act, was given to petitioner no. i. In response to the said notice petitioner no. 1 submitted a return stating therein that her husband died in the year 1968 leaving behind the three petitioners as his heirs and legal representatives ill accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It was also stated that the three petitioners, who were all majors partitioned the land left by Nakchhedi Singh and came in possession of their respective shares. Three schedules were appended to the returns showing the respective land of the three petitioners which were allotted to them and on which they were in possession separately. The return filed by petitioner no.1 according to the provisions contained in section 8 of the Act, was sent to the Anchal Adhikari for enquiry. The Anchal Adhikari submitted a report stating that petitioner no.1 had 19.93 acres of class I land after converting 3.17 acres of class II land into class I land. According to the Anchal Adhikari, petitioner no. 1 was the only land bolder. Respondent no. The Anchal Adhikari submitted a report stating that petitioner no.1 had 19.93 acres of class I land after converting 3.17 acres of class II land into class I land. According to the Anchal Adhikari, petitioner no. 1 was the only land bolder. Respondent no. 3 the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, accepted the report of the Anchal Adbikari and directed issuance of draft statement under section 10 of the Act, declaring 4.93 acres of land in excess of the ceiling area and holding that married daughters were not entitled to bold any land under the Act. An appeal against the order was preferred which was dismissed as stated above by annexure 2. 3. In the writ application, it has been stated that the husband of petitioners 2 and 3, namely, Kailash Prasad and Madho Prasad are sons of Gopal Prasad of village Sikandarpur. It has also been stated that the said Gopal Prasad had two other sons and the total possessed by his family is about one bigha only. Petitioners 2 and 3, therefore, claim that they practically have no land in their sasural 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents justifying the order contained in Annexures I and 2. It is significant to mention that land belonged to Nakchhedi Singh, who died in the year 1968 has not been disputed nor it has been disputed by, namely, petitioners 2 and 3 besides his widow, petitioner no. 1. It has been, inter alia, stated in the counter affidavit that in the revenue papers the name of petitioner no.1 is recorded. 5. Learned Counsel submitted that prior to 1972 a land bolder could keep 20 acres of class I land. Nakchhedi Singh at the time of his death in the year 1968 had the lands according to learned Counsel, within the permissible limit, He further submitted that when the limit to hold class I land was reduced to 15 acres Nakchhedi Singh was already dead and the land held by him was inherited by, petitioner no. 1 his widow and petitioners 2 and 3, two major married daughters. Learned counsel further submitted that after Nakchhedi Singh's death the three petitioners were in possession of the land to the extent of shares which was within the limit prescribed by the Act. On the other hand, Standing Counsel no. 1 his widow and petitioners 2 and 3, two major married daughters. Learned counsel further submitted that after Nakchhedi Singh's death the three petitioners were in possession of the land to the extent of shares which was within the limit prescribed by the Act. On the other hand, Standing Counsel no. 2 appearing on behalf of the respondents urged that no 'family' can hold lands in excess of the ceiling area. He further contended that petitioner no, I was holding 4.93 acres of land in excess of the ceiling area as according to him petitioners 2 and 3 were not entitled to hold lands under the Act. To support his argument, Teamed Counsel referred to the definition of ‘family' as contained in section 2 (ee) of the Act, which is as follows :- 2 (ee) 'family (means and includes a person his or her spouse and minor children.' 6. I do not think the argument advanced on behalf of the respondents can be accepted. A land holder has been defined under section 2 (g) of the Act, which is as follows :- "(g) land holder' means family, as defined in clause (ee) holding land as raiyat or as under raiyat and includes a mortgagee of land in possession" The effect of this definition is that instead of an individual for the purpose of ceiling, lands held by family has to be considered for the purpose of the Act. It has already been noticed that 'family' means and includes a person his or her spouse and minor children. The land, therefore, held by the person, his or her spouse and minor children have to be clubbed together and if after such clubbing, it is found that the land held by the family is in excess of the ceiling area then the excess has to be declared as surplus. 1t is significant to note that major children sons or daughters, as the case may be, are not included in the definition of 'family'. In case a person has a major son or major daughter, who holds land either as a raiyat or under raiyat then the land so held by him or her will have to be clubbed with the land held by him or her spouse and her minor children which will constitute a different family. In case a person has a major son or major daughter, who holds land either as a raiyat or under raiyat then the land so held by him or her will have to be clubbed with the land held by him or her spouse and her minor children which will constitute a different family. The land held by a major son or by a major daughter cannot be clubbed with the land held by the family of the parent. I may refer to a case reported in AIR 1974 Punjab and Haryana 162 which has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the State that was a case in which the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1973 were challenged. The word 'family' was also defined in that Act, which was as follows:- "Family" in relation to a person means the person, the wife or husband, as the case may be, of such person and his or her minor children, other than a married minor daughter." I have carefully perused this judgment, but I do not find anything to suggest that major daughters were disqualified either from inheriting their parents or from holding land independently of their. parents, rather in paragraph 13, it has been said "this section does not provide for any succession to the land; it only provides for the measure of the permissible area to be retained by' every holder or owner of land out of the area held or owned by him or her on the appointed day on the basis of the number of adult sons he or she has". This observation supports the 'View I have taken that the Act, does not prohibit major sons or daughters from inheriting land according to the law applicable to them, the petitioners nos. 2 and 3 according to Hindu Succession Act, 1956 inherited their father in the year 1968. The land inherited by them could not possibly be clubbed with the land held by their mother, petitioner no. 1. In case the land inherited by petitioners nos. 2 and 3 is taken out, it is obvious that the land held by petitioner no. 1 is within the limit prescribed by the Act. The order, therefore, as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition declaring 4. 93 acres of land to be surplus is illegal and without jurisdiction. 1. In case the land inherited by petitioners nos. 2 and 3 is taken out, it is obvious that the land held by petitioner no. 1 is within the limit prescribed by the Act. The order, therefore, as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition declaring 4. 93 acres of land to be surplus is illegal and without jurisdiction. Annexure 2, the appellate order, also cannot be sustained. 7. The result, therefore, is that Annexure 1 passed by the Deputy Collector incharge, Land Reforms and Annexure 2 passed by the Additional Collector, Siwan are quashed and the application is allowed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.