JUDGMENT 1. This writ application arises out of a proceeding started under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be called the Act.) The petitioner prays for quashing of Annexure 5 and 7. Annexure 6 is the order of the Additional Collector dated 29.8.1975 disposing of the objection of the petitioner filed under section 10 (3) of the Act. A review petition was filed by the petitioner which has been rejected by the Additional Collector by his order dated 30.9.1975. This is Annexure 7 to the writ application. After the filing of the writ application a supplementary affidavit was filed annexing the order of the Collector in appeal which is marked as Annexure 8 to the writ application. The petitioner prays for quashing of Annexure 8 as well. In the proceeding aforesaid certain lands of the petitioners have been declared as surplus lands. 2. The main contest before the authorities below and in this court is in relation to the number of units which the petitioner's family is entitled to. The other dispute is in relation to the classification of lands. The petitioner has been given two units, whereas the case of the petitioner is that family is entitled to three units, although at some stages, four units were claimed. So far as the classification of the lands is concerned, except for 0.84 acres, the fest of the lands have been held to be class I lands. According to the petitioners, only 32.47 acres of land is class I land and other lands are of class III, IV and V. 3. In order to appreciate the main and real controversy in this application, it will be necessary to give in a short, the genealogical table of the family of the petitioner, wherein a mention of only those members of the family has been made whose existence is relevant for the purpose of disposal of this application. Genealogical Table Ganesh Bharthi Jagdish Lakshmi Devi Adya Devi Bharthi, son (Daughter) (Daughter) died in 1972 Annapurna Devi Kaushalya Devi (wife) (wife) Jyoti Shankar, Shakuntala Mira (son) (daughter) (daughter) 4. Jagdish Bharthi is admittedly dead. He left behind two wives, namely Annapurna Devi who is issueless and Kaushalya Devi who has three children. Genealogical Table Ganesh Bharthi Jagdish Lakshmi Devi Adya Devi Bharthi, son (Daughter) (Daughter) died in 1972 Annapurna Devi Kaushalya Devi (wife) (wife) Jyoti Shankar, Shakuntala Mira (son) (daughter) (daughter) 4. Jagdish Bharthi is admittedly dead. He left behind two wives, namely Annapurna Devi who is issueless and Kaushalya Devi who has three children. The case of the petitioner is that he, Annapurna Devi and Kaushalya Devi along with her children are thus entitled to separate unit. Thus the family is entitled to three units. This is on the basis of the assumption that the children of Kaushilya Devi are all minors. It may, however, be stated that the petitioner's case was that the son, Jyoti Shankar is not a minor. 5. The State, on the other hand contents that two units have been correctly given. One unit should be given to Ganesh, Bharthi, the petitioner and one unit to the family of Jagdish Bharthi, namely, to his two wives and the children from the second wife. 6. The other contention that has been raised by the petitioner is that so far as classification of lands is concerned, the order of the learned Additional Collector is based on the verification report. The verification was not done in the presence of the petitioner. The petitioner even attempted to obtain a copy of the verification report, but the same was not made available to him. In the circumstances the petitioner contends that the noncompliance with rule 8 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules vitiates the order that has been passed even in respect of classification of lands. 7. In the course of argument, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, indicated that he was not pressing the contention that Jyoti Shankar was a major. We, therefore, proceed on the basis that all the children of Jagdish Bharthi (deceased) are minors. 8. Before dealing with the main contention it may be appropriate to deal with two of the technical objections that have been raised on behalf of the respondents. The learned Advocate General contended that a revision application is pending before the Board of Revenue. In those circumstances, this court may not decide this writ application and only after the order of the Board of Revenue is passed, the petitioner may be permitted to ventilate his grievances at a later stage. The learned Advocate General contended that a revision application is pending before the Board of Revenue. In those circumstances, this court may not decide this writ application and only after the order of the Board of Revenue is passed, the petitioner may be permitted to ventilate his grievances at a later stage. In our view the mere fact that a revision application is pending; in the circumstances the contention that have been raised particularly because one of the contentions is in relation to the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act, and the decision of this court would govern some other cases of this nature. 9. Learned Advocate General pointed out that the claim of the petitioner before the authorities was that the petitioner's family was entitled to four units. In making that claim, it was asserted that the two wives of Jagdish Bharthi would constitute only one unit. Learned Advocate General referred to annexure 7 where it is stated that the petitioner claims four units. It is to be noticed that it is not clear from the order as to what was the basis of claiming these four units. He then referred to paragraph is of the petition where, in the latter part of the paragraph, it is stated that there should be one unit for the petitioner, one for two widow daughters-in-law, one for the grand-son and one for two unmarried granddaughters. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri S.C. Ghose pointed out that the latter statement was under some confusion as in the earlier portion of the petition, it has been specifically stated that Annapurna Devi daughter in law of the petitioner, has got one unit in the properties. He also referred to Annexure 2 which was the objection filed before the Additional Collector. In that objection in paragraph 6 it is clearly stated that Mostt. Annapurna Devi was entitled to one unit in the properties. We are, thus of the view that the earliest objection raised by the petitioner specifically and clearly claimed one unit for Annapurna Devi and we accept the contention of the petitioner that in paragraph 8 of the petition, some confusing statements were made. This is clear because the earlier statements and the latter statement are contradictory. We are, thus of the view that the earliest objection raised by the petitioner specifically and clearly claimed one unit for Annapurna Devi and we accept the contention of the petitioner that in paragraph 8 of the petition, some confusing statements were made. This is clear because the earlier statements and the latter statement are contradictory. In any event, even if the petitioner had not specifically claimed one unit for Annapurna Devi and, in law, he can so claim, we do not think he can be shut out if from the earliest he is claiming three units or more. As to what should be the basis for claiming the number of units, can be explained or changed according to the correct appreciation of law, without claiming the case of the parties in its essential particulars. For both these reasons we think this writ application should be disposed of on merit. 10. It is not in dispute, indeed in view of the position in law it cannot be in dispute, that the petitioner Annapurna Devi and Kaushalya Devi and her children are members of the family having undefined share in the properties. In this context, it has to be seen whether Annapurna Devi can also be treated to be a land holder. The definition of land holder is as follows:– "(G) Land Holder "means" a family, as defined in clause 2(ee) holding land as raiyat or as under raiyat and include a mortgagee of land in possession". Land holder thus means a family as defined in clause 2(ee) of the Act, Clause 2(ee) defines a family in these terms. "(ee) "Family" means and includes a person his or her spouse and minor children. Explanation – In this clause the word a person includes any company, institution, trust association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not." Thus, where a person is or has living a spouse and minor children, they are all to be helped together and would constitute one family within the meaning of law. But if a widow is there and she does not have a spouse nor does she have minor children she alone constitute the family within the meaning of law because the expression family includes a person also. But if a widow is there and she does not have a spouse nor does she have minor children she alone constitute the family within the meaning of law because the expression family includes a person also. It is only when a person has a spouse or minor children that they too have to be included in the family for the purpose of administration of the Land Ceiling Act. It was conceded by the learned Advocate General that if Annapurna Devi would constitute a family within the meaning of law, she would be a land holder and consequently entitled to separate unit. He, however, contended that she could not be so treated. He further contended that the two widows and the minor children of one widow should be taken together to constitute• the family. We do not find any justification for holding that the two widows with the minor children would constitute one family. There is nothing in the definition of the expression family which can be so construed as to include them together to constitute a family. As to what would be the shares of the widow on partition is not relevant for the purpose of finding out the true meaning of the expression family which has itself been defined. Of course, if the husband was alive the position would have been different. In that situation the husband and all his wives would be treated to constitute one family along with their minor children. But such is not the position here. We are therefore clearly of the view that Annapurna Devi came within the meaning of the expression family and was therefore entitled to be treated as one separate unit. If that be the position it can not be doubted that the family of petitioner would be entitled to three units and not two as held by the Additional Collector. 11. So far as the contention of the petitioner in relation to classification of land is concerned it is not controverted that the verification was not done in the presence of the petitioner. That he was not able to obtain the verification report is also not controverted. In the circumstances, it bas to be held that there has not been compliance with the provisions of rule 8 of the Rules. That he was not able to obtain the verification report is also not controverted. In the circumstances, it bas to be held that there has not been compliance with the provisions of rule 8 of the Rules. It is also clear that if the petitioner was not in a position to get a copy of the verification report he could not know the case which he had to meet. The fact that the petitioner was not in a position to obtain the verification report further strengthens his case that he has been prejudiced be the procedure adopted in this case namely the non compliance with the provision's of rule 8 of the Rules. In Mahabir Prasad & other vs. State of Bihar, 1975 B.B.C.J. 701 a Bench of this court has held that although the non compliance of rule 8 did not render the order that was passed without jurisdiction never the less in suitable cases the non compliance with this rule may entitle the petitioner to challenge the order that has been passed, in case prejudice is established by the petitioner. In the circumstances of the present case we are satisfied that prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on account of non compliance with the rule aforesaid. 12. It is also to be noticed that the proceeding was started only against Ganesh Bharthi. The other members of the family were not parties to that proceeding. In view of the provision section 15(3) of the Act, it was open to them to raise objections under that provisions including objection in relation to the classification of land. In those circumstances, it appears to us that it is a fit case in which we should quash the entire order of the learned Additional Collector and direct a remand. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes: that the other members of the family will also appear before the Additional Collect or. This attitude of the learned counsel is correct and helpful and it will eliminate any later objection. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes: that the other members of the family will also appear before the Additional Collect or. This attitude of the learned counsel is correct and helpful and it will eliminate any later objection. 13. In the result we would allow this writ application, quash the orders contained in Annexure 6, 7 and 8 and direct that the Additional Collector or any other officer to whom the case may be transferred by the Collector, should determine the objection of the petitioner and such other objections that may be filed by other members of the family in accordance with law and in the light of observation and decision made in this application. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Application allowed.