JUDGMENT 1. In this Writ Application the petitioners challenge the orders contained in Annexure 9, 10 and 11 being the orders of the Deputy Collector incharge Land Reforms, Additional Collector and the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, respectively. These orders have been passed under the Provisions of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 hereinafter refer red to as "the Act". 2. A proceeding under the provisions of the Act, was started against Basudeo Prasad Gutgutia (Respondent No. 5). In that proceeding objection was filed by respondents 5 to 7 under section 10 (3) of the Act. Another objection was filed by petitioners 1 to 4. In both these objections it was stated that about 205 acres of land out of 233.87 acres belonged to the members of the joint family and on partition different portions had been allotted to the members of the family. This block of land constitutes Jamabandi No. 13 and is described as "Mool Raiyat Ka Jote". It may be stated that about 54 acres of land constituted Jamabandi No.1 which was Mool Raiyati Jote. The land of jamabandi No. 13 bas been treated to be the lands of respondents 5 to 7 and on that basis about 143.81 acres of land bas been declared as surplus by the Deputy Collector incharge Land Reforms. It appears that the Additional Collector has modified the order of the Deputy Collector incharge Land Reforms to the detriment of the landholders. The order of the Additional Collector bas been affirmed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue. 3. Appearing for the petitioner, Sri Kailash Roy contended that the lands of jamabandi no. 13 have been treated to belong exclusively to the family of respondent no. 5 on the basis of the aforesaid land having been purchased in auction sale in the name of the grandfather of respondent no. 5. These lands were actually joint family lands and should have been treated as such. In support of the contention it was pointed out that a number of documents were filed. These have been enumerated in paragraph 19 of the Writ application. Learned Counsel contended that these documents have not been considered and merely on the basis of the auction purchase being in the name of the grandfather of respondent no. In support of the contention it was pointed out that a number of documents were filed. These have been enumerated in paragraph 19 of the Writ application. Learned Counsel contended that these documents have not been considered and merely on the basis of the auction purchase being in the name of the grandfather of respondent no. 5 the properties have been treated to belong to the family of the aforesaid landholder. 4. Where a family is joint and acquisition is made by the joint family the mere fact that the acquisition has been made in the name of the karta or even in the name of one of the members of the joint family does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the acquisition is self acquisition. It is also possible for a member of the joint family to make self acquisition and put that self acquisition into the common hotch patch. The correct legal posit ion has been stated by Mulla in Article 233 (2), head note (h) and Article 227 of his Book on Hindu Law. 5. The authorities had, therefore, to apply their mind and decide the question whether jamabandi No. 13 was joint family property or not on the basis of the materials that were adduced before them. It was not open to them to discredit the case of the petitioners and respondents 5 to 7 merely on the ground that the auction purchase was in the name of the grandfather of respondent no. 5. In this view of the matter it is a fit case in which there should be further consideration of the matter by the authorities. 6. We would, accordingly, quash Annexure 9, 10 and 11 and direct that the question whether jamabandi no. 13 belonged exclusively to respondents 5 to 7 or any of them or whether it was joint family property should be reconsidered and decided on the materials that are already on the record and further materials that may be adduced by the parties including the State of Bihar. It will also be open to the parties to adduce oral evidence In support of their respective case. 7. This application is accordingly allowed and Annexure 9, 10 and 11 are quashed. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. 8. The petitioners must appear before the Deputy Collector incharge Land Reforms on the 28th of May, 1979. 7. This application is accordingly allowed and Annexure 9, 10 and 11 are quashed. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. 8. The petitioners must appear before the Deputy Collector incharge Land Reforms on the 28th of May, 1979. It is stated that respondents 5 to 7 will also appear on that date. On that date petitioner no. 5 should also be permitted to file objection, if any. Thereafter a date will be fixed for hearing of all the objections and disposal in accordance with law. Application allowed.