JUDGMENT By Court A proceeding under the provision of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, was started against petitioner no.1. Thakur Girja Nandan Singh. After service of the draft statement the petitioner filed objection under section 10 (3) of the Act. The same has been disposed by of the Sub-divisional Officer, Sitamarhi, on 29. 2.1976. A copy of the aforesaid order is Annexure 5 to the writ application. The petitioner went in appeal against the aforesaid order which was disposed of on 17.5.1976 by the Collector under Annexure 6 to the writ application. Thereafter the petitioner moved in revision before the Board of Revenue. The revision application has been disposed of by Annexure 7 by the Additional Member. Board of Revenue The petitioners pray for quashing of these annexures. 2. Four contentions have been raised in this court and we shall deal with each of them separately. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that by a registered deed of gift dated 29.3.1963, 61.59 acres of land were gifted by petitioner no.1 in favour of his three daughters. This gift was under the permissive provision of section 5 (5) of the Act. The land so gifted should have been excluded from consideration. The order of the Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, mentions that this point was not pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that it is stated in paragraph 26 of the petition that this point was pressed. It was, therefore on account of some confusion that the observation aforesaid has been made in the order of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue. So far as the appellate court is concerned, it observed that neither the date of gift has been furnished nor the registered document or certified copy thereof has been produced. On these grounds it repelled the contention of the land-holder. So far as the date of gift is concerned that is clearly given in the objection under section 10 (3) of the Act, that has been filed by the petitioners. On these grounds it repelled the contention of the land-holder. So far as the date of gift is concerned that is clearly given in the objection under section 10 (3) of the Act, that has been filed by the petitioners. The production of the original or certified copy of the document was not necessary, it was contended as the fact of donation possession and mutation of the name of the donee is mentioned in the draft statement itself The learned counsel says that in the circumstances it was not necessary for the petitioners to produce the document unless directed by a specific order. The contention of learned counsel appears to be correct. The assertion made by learned counsel with reference to the draft statement that was served on the petitioners as also from the copy of the draft statement in the record of the case which was produced during the course of argument is correct. Learned counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that in the earlier proceeding under the unamended provision of the Act, gift was recognised. A copy of the order dated 15.10.1971 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, has beer marked as Annexure 1 to the writ application. So far as the order of the Sub-divisional Officer is concerned it has been mentioned that there is no such provision in section 5 (5) of the Act. The learned Sub-divisional Officer however has not noticed that at the relevant time section 5 (5) of the statute book and it was only by Act, 1 of 1973 that the aforesaid provision was deleted. At the relevant time, it was legally permissible to transfer land by the landholder in favour of his daughters. The reason given by the Sub-divisional officer also does not appear to be good reason in law. In the circumstances. it will have to be reconsidered by the authorities whether the gift in Question is covered by section 5 (5) of the Act, as it then existed and if so covered the lands gifted have to be excluded from consideration for the purpose of determining the Ceiling Area of the family. In the circumstances. it will have to be reconsidered by the authorities whether the gift in Question is covered by section 5 (5) of the Act, as it then existed and if so covered the lands gifted have to be excluded from consideration for the purpose of determining the Ceiling Area of the family. It is made clear that in case the gifted lands are excluded from consideration so far as this case is concerned, the authorities will be at liberty to club the gifted lands of the daughters of petitioner no.1 with the lands of their respective husband for the purpose of determining whether their family holds land in excess of the ceiling area. 4. The next contention is in relation to the classification of lands. Learned counsel asserted that in the draft statement most of the lands were shown as class V lands. It was, therefore, not open to change the classification while disposing of the objection of the petitioner under section 10 (3) of the Act. Learned counsel further pointed out that there has been modification regarding the classification in the appellate order to the prejudice of the petitioner on the basis of some verification which was done in absence of the petitioner, and the report where of was not made available to him. We have examined the draft statement served on the petitioner as also the original record. It does appear that in both these documents most of the lands are described as class V lands. In the circumstance, if the authorities are of the opinion that the classificati0n was wrong, there should have been amendment of the draft statement so that the petitioners would have been able to meet the case that the lands were of different categories.• The question of classification has also to be reconsidered by the authorities. 5. The next contention that has been raised is that certain lands are tenanted and possessed by others. They should have been excluded from consideration. This objection of the petitioners can be met if the landholder is given an option to select the land that is to be retained by the landholders. We, therefore, direct that before finally publishing the draft statement in pursuance of the order that we are passing in this case, the petitioners should be given an option to choose the lands they propose to retain. We, therefore, direct that before finally publishing the draft statement in pursuance of the order that we are passing in this case, the petitioners should be given an option to choose the lands they propose to retain. Further it should be verified from the revenue records whether the lands which are proposed to be declared as surplus are recorded in the name of other persons. If they are so recorded, then they should be declared as surplus only after due notice to them. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the authorities have excluded from consideration the sale of 3.99 acres of lands covered by Annexure-2. But it would appear that all these lands have been transferred after the appointed day, i. e. 9. 9. 1970. In the circumstances, the authorities were right in not accepting the c1aim of the petitioners that those lands should not be taken into consideration for determing the ceiling area. We, however, would like to observe that at the time of exercise of option, these lands should be directed to be retained by the landholder so that the transferees are not prejudicially affected. 7. In the result, we allow this writ application, quash Annexures 5, 6 and 7 and direct that the objection filed under section 10 (3) of the Act, should be re-determined in accordance with law and in light of the observations made in this judgment. The petitioners must arrear before the Sub-divisional Officer on 10th October, 1977. On that date another date will be fixed for hearing of the objection and disposal thereof, after amending the draft statement, if the authorities so desire. The parties, including the state should be permitted to adduce such evidence as they may be advised to adduce at the time of hearing of the application. Application allowed.