JUDGMENT By Court A proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 was started against the petitioner, Dwarka Singh. The petitioner being aggrieved against the order passed under annexures 3 and 4, being orders of the Collector and Additional Member, Board of Revenue, has filed this writ application, The impugned orders proceeded on the basis that the family of Dwarka Singh had interest in 79. 64½ acres of land. In this Court an application has been filed on behalf of Parwrti Devi stating that the family of Dwarka Singh did not possess 79 64½ acres of land and she has prayed for being impleaded as a party to this writ application. 2. Under Annexure :- it has been held that the family of Dwarka Singh was entitled to two units, one for himself and the other for his son, Sheoji Singh. Before the Collector it was contended that Deokinandan Singh, with whom the petitioner Dwarka Singh was joint died in December, 1972. On his death the three daughters of Deokinandan Singh (sisters of the petitioner) also got interest in the property which was subject matter of the proceeding. It was also contended that there were registered gifts in favcur of the three daughters of the petitioner in conformity with the provisions of Section 5 (5) of the Act, as it stood in 1962 and the lands so transferred should also be excluded from consideration while determ1ning the ceiling area of the family. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner has not been accepted by the Collector. The petitioner, therefore, went in revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue remanded the case and directed the consideration of the question whether Jayanti Devi. one of the daughter of the petitioner. was major on 9-9-70. It has also been directed that there should be a fresh inquiry about the age of Sheoji Singh. who was held to be entitled to a separate unit by the Collector. The order of the Collector has been affirmed in other respects. We are told that the three daughters of the petitioner have filed claim under Section 15(3) of the Act, which has been disposed of and is now pending before the Board of Revenue. 3. who was held to be entitled to a separate unit by the Collector. The order of the Collector has been affirmed in other respects. We are told that the three daughters of the petitioner have filed claim under Section 15(3) of the Act, which has been disposed of and is now pending before the Board of Revenue. 3. The first contention that has been raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the three sisters of the petitioner had also interest as land holders in the family property and that their interest should have been excluded from consideration in the present proceeding. The view taken by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, is that since Deokinandan Singh died subsequent to 9-9-70 there is no question of his three daughters having interest of the landed property of their father on 9-9-70. To this extent the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, is right but we have clarified the legal position in Smt. Savitri Devi Drolia V. State of Bihar that the ceiling area has to be determined with reference to a land held by a living person and not in respect of the dead person. It can not be disputed, in view of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, that on the death of Deokinandan Singh his interest in the property would also devolve on his three daughters in accordC1nce with the provisions of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Thus I/4th interest in the co-parcenary property of which Deokinandan Singh and Dwarka Singh were members devolved on the three daughters. It is, therefore, only in respect of the remaining 3/4th interest that the authorities have jurisdiction to consider whether the same is in excess, of the ceiling area prescribed by law. of course, whatever interest devolves on the three daughters would be clubbed together with that of their respect he husbands for determining whether their family is in excess of the ceiling area. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Additional Member, Board of Revenue erred in law in directing the determination of the question whether Sheoji Singh was a major on 9-9-1970 when the State neither filed any appeal nor cross-objection against the decision of the Collector holding that Sheoji Singh was entitled to a separate unit. This contention too has substance. This contention too has substance. It is stated in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit as follows :- "That with regard to the statements in paras 24, 25 and 26 it is stated that Sri Shivji Singh son of the petitioner had already concluded and was not the subject matter of appeal and the said matter was neither argued nor agitated by the either side before the Additional Member, Board of Revenue but the learned Additiona1 Member re-opened the matters in regard to Shivji Singh determining his age on 9-9-70 and he found Sri Shivji Singh was minor on 9-9-70 because the learned Collector observed on the basis of the report of the B.D.O. Dinara that the age of Sri Shivji Singh son of the petitioner is about 23 years on 2-9-76 and apparently the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue observed that the son of the petitioner was minor on 9-9-70 which is justified and under his jurisdiction and he allowed the legal and judicial procedure and the order is correct and justified". It is thus, clear that the State has not, even in the argument, raised the question of there being an error in relation to the majority of Sheoji Singh, In those circumstances, in the absence of appeal or cross objection, the Additional Member erred in law in requiring the re-determination on the question of majority of Sheoji Singh. It may be, however, clarified that the observations made is without prejudice to the powers exercisable by the State Government or Collector under Section 45-B of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, should have directed the re-determination of the age of the three daughters of the petitioner. As already stated, all the three daughters have filed objections under Section 15 (3) of the Act, which is pending at the appellate stage. Irrespective of other consideration in view of the applications having been filed by the three ladies, it is not necessary to consider, further, arguments made in that context. The three daughters will have full opportunity of vindicating their stand in the proceeding under Section 15(3) of the Act, which is now pending at the appellate stage. 6. Irrespective of other consideration in view of the applications having been filed by the three ladies, it is not necessary to consider, further, arguments made in that context. The three daughters will have full opportunity of vindicating their stand in the proceeding under Section 15(3) of the Act, which is now pending at the appellate stage. 6. In the result this application is allowed to the extent indicated above and the Collector is directed to proceed with the case on remand in the light of the legal position explained and the observations made in this judgment. Application allowed in part.