Judgment HARI LAL AGRAWAL, J. 1. The petitioners in this application are the four deities against whom a proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was started by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sasaram (respondent No. 4). The petitioners had claimed two units; one unit for petitioner No. 1 and another for petitioners Nos. 2 to 4. Respondent No. 4. however, allowed only one unit to the petitioners and declared 20-615 acres of land as surplus. His decision was affirmed on appeal and in revision by respondents Nos. 3 and 2 respectively. They have, accordingly, filed an application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before this court. 2. The relevant facts are these : One Despat Rai consecrated four idols of Shri Lakshmi Narayan, Shri Mahabirji, Shri Shivajee and Shri Parbatiji and installed the deities in two temples. Thereafter by a registered deed of endowment dated 19-6-1938 executed in favour of the aforesaid deities, he bequeathed 56 bighas 19 kathas 8 dhurs of land situate in villages Awari and Narayanpur, within Bikramganj Police Station, in the district of Rohtas. According to the terms of the endowment, the properties in question were transferred in favour of all the four deities absolutely as tenants-in-common with provision for meeting out all the services due to them, such as Rag-bhog and other requirements as also for the maintenance of the temples, out of the income derived from the endowed properties. The founder Daspat Rai also executed a deed of gift on 17-1-1961 with respect to 3.02 acres of land in the name of "Lakshmi Narayan Juthan Hospital" and appointed a Committee for management of the Hospital. Three of the plots in this deed, being plots Nos. 501, 502 and 514 were the subject-matter of the earlier endowment, Daspat Rai acted as Motwalli of the endowed properties till he died in the year 1962 and was succeeded by his brothers widow, and after her death, one Ram Kailash Rai started looking after the management of the temples and the deities. 501, 502 and 514 were the subject-matter of the earlier endowment, Daspat Rai acted as Motwalli of the endowed properties till he died in the year 1962 and was succeeded by his brothers widow, and after her death, one Ram Kailash Rai started looking after the management of the temples and the deities. Later on, the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, under the provisions of S. 32 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950, settled a scheme for the administration of the temples and directed that the aforesaid Ram Kailash Rai would administer the scheme in consultation with two other persons, namely, (1) Shri Jairam Giri, M.L.A. and (2) Shri Rameshwar Rai. 3. When the proceeding was started by respondent No. 4 under S. 10 (2) of the Act, an objection was filed on behalf of the deities under S. 10 (3) of the Act stating inter alia that the properties of the temples were the trust properties controlled by the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts and that, in any view of the matter, at least two units should be allowed to the deities. A claim for exemption under S. 29 of the Act was also made. 4. Respondent No. 4 by his order dated 21-10-1976 (Annexure 1) rejected the claim for exemption on the ground that the Hospital was still under construction and, as already stated earlier, held that the petitioners were entitled to only one unit. There is no discussion on the order of respondent No. 4 regarding the claim of the petitioners for grant of more than one unit. An appeal was then filed by the petitioners before the Collector of Rohtas (respondent No. 3). The appeal was also dismissed by the order dated 11-4-1977 (Annexure 2). There is no discussion regarding the claim of the petitioners for separate units in this order either. A revision was then filed by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue. The Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar (respondent No. 2) in his order dated 1-9-1977 (Annexure 3), on the basis of the report of the Anchal Adhikari has found that there was only one temple and all the four idols were installed in different apartments of the same temple. The Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar (respondent No. 2) in his order dated 1-9-1977 (Annexure 3), on the basis of the report of the Anchal Adhikari has found that there was only one temple and all the four idols were installed in different apartments of the same temple. On this as well as on the ground that all the deities were not recorded separately in respect of ascertained lands and only one rent receipt was being granted in respect of all the endowed lands, he held that they were entitled to only one unit. Respondent No. 2 further held that the gift of aforesaid three plots out of the endowed properties by Daspat Rai was invalid as they could not have been dealt with by him. 5. In this court Mr. Balbhadra Pd. Singh, learned counsel appearing in support of the application, strongly contended that the Revenue authorities have entirely misdirected themselves in allowing only one unit to the petitioners under an erroneous impression that they being installed in only one temple and there being only one document of endowment in their favour, they could not get more than one unit. Learned counsel contended that as a matter of fact, all the four deities were entitled to separate units in their own rights, notwithstanding the fact that no specified properties were endowed to them separately and that the endowment was made in their favour jointly. 6. In order to answer the question falling for our consideration, I will briefly state the scheme of the Act. The scheme of the Act, as it appears from its very preamble, is to make provision, inter alia, for fixation of ceiling for personal cultivation of land and acquisition of surplus land by the State. The Act, as it was initially passed by the Legislature, contained a provision for giving every land-holder independent ceiling area and each member of an undivided Hindu family, having or being entitled to a share in the land, was deemed to be a land-holder for the purpose of the Act, as if there had been a notional partition in the family immediately before the commencement of the Act. In this way, each co-sharer became entitled to hold land up to the Ceiling Area. The Act was later on amended and the definition of land-holder was changed. In this way, each co-sharer became entitled to hold land up to the Ceiling Area. The Act was later on amended and the definition of land-holder was changed. The present definition of land-holder is as follows :- " land-holder means a family, as defined in cl. (ee) holding land as raiyat or as underraiyat and includes a mortgagee of land in possession." Section 5 of the Act debars any person to hold any land in excess of the ceiling area prescribed under Sec. 4. The legal position is now well settled by a series of decisions of this court that a person who can claim a separate unit must be a holder of land. In other words, the right to hold land within the ceiling area by a person is necessarily based on his being a land holder and having a present and subsisting interest as a raiyat or under-raiyat, etc. in the property. Similarly, all the major members of a joint Hindu family having present interest in the property are to be treated as separate land holders entitled to separate units for the purpose of the ceiling area. In other words, for the purpose of the Act, family means a person who holds land as a raiyat or under-raiyat or a mortgagee in possession. It has to be seen as to whether in these circumstances and under this scheme, the petitioners can claim more than one unit or they will get only one unit because they have been installed in one house (temple). 7. At the very outset, I would make it clear that in this case no trust was created by Daspat Rai in favour of the idols. Had it been a case of a trust, the position would have been quite otherwise. The consecration is of the idols and the dedication of the property is to them directly. After the dedication, it could have been possible for Daspat Rai to create the trust and vest the lands under the trustees, but he did not do that. It is well settled that the basic concept of a religious endowment under the Hindu Law differs in essential particulars from the concept of trust known to English law. Daspat Rai himself constituted as the first shebait and laid down the rule of succession in the document in question. The legal ownership under the endowment, therefore, vested in the idols. It is well settled that the basic concept of a religious endowment under the Hindu Law differs in essential particulars from the concept of trust known to English law. Daspat Rai himself constituted as the first shebait and laid down the rule of succession in the document in question. The legal ownership under the endowment, therefore, vested in the idols. The dedication in this case being directly to the idols, the position of Daspat Rai, the shebait, was only of the administrator of the properties in question. In the case of Sri Vidya Varuthi Tirtha Swamigal V/s. Baluswami Ayyar, AIR 1922 PC 123, the Judicial Committee quoted with approval the following passage from Hindu Law by J. C. Ghose : "Under the Hindu Law, the image of a deity of the Hindu pantheon is, as has, been aptly called a juristic entity, vested with the capacity of receiving gift and holding property...... When the gift is directly to an idol or a temple, the seisin to complete the gift is necessarily effected by human agency. Called by whatever name, he is only the manager and custodian of the idol or the institution." The nature of the property, therefore, is debuttar, that is, belonging to the deities. It would be proper at this stage to notice the distinction between the properties dedicated to temples and that to Maths. When the dedication is to a temple, the property is held by the idols, but the possession and its management must, in the nature of things be entrusted to some person as shebait or manager who is a human ministrant of the deity to conduct worship. A math like an idol in Hindu Law is a juridical person capable of acquiring, holding and vindicating legal rights, but the position of the Mahant, however, is that the property of a Math is held by him as the spiritual head of the institution. In the conception of Mahanthship, as in shebaitship, both the elements of office and property are blended together and neither can be detached from the other, but a Mahanth, in addition to his duties, has a personal interest of a beneficial character which is much larger than that of a shebait in a debuttar property. 8. In the conception of Mahanthship, as in shebaitship, both the elements of office and property are blended together and neither can be detached from the other, but a Mahanth, in addition to his duties, has a personal interest of a beneficial character which is much larger than that of a shebait in a debuttar property. 8. On examination of the deed of endowment in question, it is apparent that the dedicator intended to bequeath the properties to all the four petitioners making dedication to them directly. Instead of executing four separate documents, for the sake of convenience he executed only one document. In the case of Mahabir Prasad V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 Pat 256 it was held by a Bench of this Court that endowments and trusts have to be treated as separate units as they are separate and distinct persons. In that case, the deed of endowment was only to one family deity, namely, Shri Ram Jankiji Maharaj and one unit was allowed to the said deity. The same principle was applied again by this court in C. W. J. C. No. 2186 of 1976 (Pat) (Mahanth Sudarshan Das V/s. State of Bihar) disposed of on 10th Dec. 1976. There is nothing in the deed of endowment in question that the dedicator even intended to treat any of the petitioners as the principal deity. All the four petitioners have been equally treated and endowed with property without any reservation. 9. On consideration of the facts of this case and the relevant position in point of law, I come to the conclusion that all the four petitioners are separate juristic entities, properties being endowed to them just like any other human being. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents rightly conceded that had it been a gift to four individuals, they were entitled to four units separately, each of them being a land-holder within the meaning of Cl. (g) of S. 2 of the Act and entitled to a separate unit. If that be so, I do not see any reason for taking a view that the position should be different as the beneficiaries in this case are idols. It could not be contended that all the four petitioners would constitute one family within the meaning of S. 2 (ee) of the Act. If that be so, I do not see any reason for taking a view that the position should be different as the beneficiaries in this case are idols. It could not be contended that all the four petitioners would constitute one family within the meaning of S. 2 (ee) of the Act. The definition of family in S. 2 (ee) is as follows : "Family means and includes a person, his or her spouse and minor children." Even applying the above rigid test laid down in the Act, the first two petitioners, namely, Shri Lakshmi Narayan and Shri Mahabirji must be treated as separate units. And even assuming that the fourth petitioner, namely, Shri Parbatiji is considered to be a spouse of the third petitioner, namely, Shri Shivajee, even then both these petitioners were entitled to one unit. In that view of the matter, the petitioners were entitled to at least three units, being in the same position of Hindu coparceners and, therefore, separate land holder or "families" in the eye of law. The petitioners had, however, claimed only two units before the Revenue authorities. It is, therefore, not possible to grant them any larger relief of more than two units. Their purpose also will be served if only two units are allowed to them as the surplus land declared in this case is a little over 20 acres only. 10 I would accordingly allow this application to the extent indicated above, set aside the orders passed by respondents 2, 3 and 4 contained in Annexures 3, 2 and 1 respectively. Let an appropriate writ issue accordingly. In the circumstances, however, I would make no order as to costs. M.P.SINGH, J. 11 I agree.