JUDGMENT A proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of surplus land) Act, 1961, herein after referred to as 'the Act' was started against respondent no. 5 one of the objections that was taken in the proceeding was that Srimati Jasoda Kuer was the separated wife of respondent no. 5 and had in fact been divorced according to the custom prevalent in the Sikh community. Certain properties were gifted to her by a registered deed of gift dated 7.9.1962. This could not be included in the proceeding. The objection of the petitioner has been disposed of in Annexure 8. Thereafter there was an appeal which has been disposed of in the Annexure 9. After the disposal of the appeal a revision application was filed. During the pendency of the revision application Shrimati Jasoda Kuer died. Before the Board of Revenue the petitioner, who claims to be a landholder of the property gifted to Jasoda Kuer by virtue of a registered will executed on 8.7.1977, filed a petition of intervention. The prayer of intervention has not been allowed and the revision application that was originally filed has been disposed of under Annexure 10. The petitioner prays that the orders under Annexure 8 to 10 be quashed in so far as they relate to the land belonging to the petitioner on the basis of the Will aforesaid. 2. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue who had disposed of the revision application came to the conclusion that Jasoda Kuer had to be taken as a member of the family of the petitioner and it was on that basis that he proceeded. The fact that Jasoda Kuer had died during the pendency of the revision application was not attached any importance as is apparent from the order under challenge. 3. The first contention that has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the authorities erred in Jaw in not holding that Jasoda Kuer was divorced wife of respondent no. 5 and as such she could not be treated to be a member of the family. It is not necessary to decide this question, as the petition, in our view, would be allowed on the second contention that has been raised. 4. 5 and as such she could not be treated to be a member of the family. It is not necessary to decide this question, as the petition, in our view, would be allowed on the second contention that has been raised. 4. The contention is that when Jasoda Kuer died during the pendency of the revision application and before final publica don of the draft Statement in accordance with law, the property of Jasoda Kuer can no longer be treated to be her's for the purpose of the disposal of the land ceiling case. Reliance in this cast was placed on an unreported Bench decision of this court in the case of Chandra Madhava Pd. Singh and others V. The State of Bihar and others. The contention of learned counsel appears to be correct. 5. Had there been publication of draft statement in accordance with law the position might have been different. But there having been no final publication, the authorities cannot proceed to take into consideration the lands belonging to a dead person and proceed to decide the land ceiling case on that basis. 6. In this view of the matter, it is necessary that there should be re-determination of the question whether the petitioner is land holder on the basis of the registered deed of gift in favour of Jasoda Kuer and the registered will which he claims has been executed in his favour. If the authorities find that he is a landholder then the lands belonging to him have to be excluded for the purpose of determining the ceiling area. 7. We would accordingly allow this writ petition and quash Annexure 8.9 and 10 to the extent indicated above and direct re-determination of the question aforesaid and passing of suitable orders in accordance with law in the light of the observations that have been made in this judgment. The petitioner must appear before the Deputy Collector incharge Land Reforms, Katihar on the 27th August 1979 and the objection, if any, which should be determined in accordance with law. For that purpose another dates would be find when the parties including the State should be permitted to lead evidence if they are so advised. There will be no orders as to costs. Application allowed.